BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 01:32 AM

Tell that to Fox News Service, Conrad.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 09:22 PM

separation of social content from art is not argued here.

providing access to all sides of an argument if possible is. Domination of limited media is discouraged.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:45 PM

Conrad, I see no reason for tolerance for "red baiting". I also think that an appeal to hear all sides of a question without condemning some is sophistry.

Rallies and protests have moved the U.S. forward in many ways by stopping unneeded wars, protecting civil rights, equal rights for women, child labor laws, social security and so what if these songs are used in a concert? Art is not this bloodless and cold entity that is afraid of its shadow. We need more concerts that are political rallies. This would open the door to more dialogue and not shut it. Censoring political content is one way of shutting the door on open dialogue. If "art" is the rarified out-of-body mist of elitism, then it would serve no important function. I am in favor of anyone who has something to say politically in song to be able to do it. The audience will be the best judge of what is meaningful for them, not some half-assed critic who is obsessed with their limited view of "art".

It is precisely because of the political and social topical song, the U.S. enjoyed and still enjoys a revival in the U.S. I submit that one of the obstacles to the spreading of folk music in the U.S. was some of the up-tight folklorists who wanted to keep their music somehow pure and deny its change. Politics has a place in music as much as American citizenship. It's not necessary to agree with every statement an artist makes in order to
enjoy their performance. I think of religion as a kind of politics and I do enjoy some religious songs without agreeing with their meaning.

Separating social content from art is Don Quixote at windmills.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:52 PM

Hey, if you can't get a paying gig, and still want to play for people...there's always rallies, and benefits........

Besides, folk music as merely a protest, is just another protest..
"Art for therapy might be good therapy..but might not be great art!"

Oh, and by the way, We love Smothers and Seeger!

Speaking of 'protest' songs'..here's the first one of the wave, that sparked many others.......(I mixed sound for him, when he played Santa Fe).....
If you want something to protest, get beyond petty bitching!


Needs re-visiting

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:20 PM

Once again I did not say that politics could not be introduced into song but that song should not be performed in folk contexts for political purposes.

On this thread individuals have said that they would never sing a song they disagreed with.

Read them.....

Yes if more effort had been put into presenting a broad spectrum of thought in the folk language of music there would be even more folk music today and more people would find it something they would wish to enter into.

With the branding of the past the door is half closed- to all those who do not agree with liberal left etc....had it not been branded the door would have been entirely open. Or perceived that way.

Conrad

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:45 PM

Folk music would expand faster if we just let Nazis share the stage. There, it's been said.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:31 PM

"Is just the sort of proposal that many opposing my statements suggest is taboo. That is singing any song that they do not agree with. "

Hold on - point out where anyone said it was "taboo". Show me where we said "any song" that we do not agree with should not be sung.

It is all about context and freedom of artistic expression. You come across as if it should a requirement and politics should not be introduced in song.

Your spin doctoring is failing.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:19 PM

If you read this thread more closely you will find that
_________
A song is not a Socratic dialogue. I have given concerts where I presented an anti-union song with a pro-union song. I also have presented songs representing both sides of the American Civil War.
==frank
__________

Is just the sort of proposal that many opposing my statements suggest is taboo. That is singing any song that they do not agree with.
I suggest that on the level of art a song is a song. Unless people believe that singing a song that one does not agree with is some sort of curse or prayer that will cause people to get up and do violence....

Yes folk music is expanding but not as fast as it should generally because it has been branded and also age set defined through commercial marketing.

Conrad

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:26 PM

I'm not sure this exercise in rebuttal is worth the time but it might shed some light
on the misinformation and misapprehensions that some have about folk music and the left.



"No one has to give equal time to the opposing view"

Many have considered ideas that would be an opposing view and decided that they don't work. This is not blind prejudice but the exercising of reflection.

"however many here think that it is not a good thing to work hard to bring in opposing views."

Opposing views having been considered must have resolution. It's not a sign of personal integrity to hold opposing views at the same time.

"Many here believe that no one with views they do not agree with should be given a stage anywhere."

This isn't true. I think that a stage should be given to anyone with the right of an audience to accept or reject the performance through their attendance

"One should never sing songs that one does not agree with not even simple sing along for arts sake."

No. Most of us who sing folk songs will sing songs we don't agree with because our selection is in a context of programming. I think that a broader view of songs has to be in a specific context reflecting the views and taste of the performer.

"People are generally opposed although there have been a few in support of using folk music as a way to exchange views in dialog from one side to another in an open free accessible stage or media."

A song is not a Socratic dialogue. I have given concerts where I presented an anti-union song with a pro-union song. I also have presented songs representing both sides of the American Civil War. There is an old saying, "those with a completely open mind have wind blowing between their ears." People invariably have a point-of-view which does not always turn on a dime but is forged out of a lifetime of experience. This is necessary to wanting to sing songs in the first place or to present them in a context that reflects the views of the performer.


"Some people seem to think that a folk song is not art nor music but simply a sort of incantation that projects political views above all else."

I don't know any performing artist who thinks this way. Most of the propagandists are in politics and cynically know that their ideas are being used to manipulate public opinion. Not so for performing artists who feel deeply about what they are expressing. There is not one artist I know who places "projecting political views above all else" and if this is a view of Pete Seeger, then, I must question the ability of the person who says this to receive any artistic endeavor with understanding.



" Therefore singing a song that you don't agree with will be dangerous to everyone."

Singing any song will be dangerous to some one.

"There is little appreciation for songs of all political flavors as woerks of art and literature and that it is wrong to accept the equal validity of the hopes of all peoples singing together."

Since there are many different audiences for songs of all political flavors, this can't be true. But a song is not politics. It's an artistic form of expression. I know of no artist
who wants to manipulate public opinion on politics through the use of musical performance art. There are those who are not in music that claim this. It is paranoid and specious thinking and denigrates the role of the musical artist in society. This is generally a pursuit of attacking the artist for political reasons and is usually by those who have an political agenda and are not in the arts. Therefore the artist is considered by these types to be dangerous.
.


"This my friends is why folk music has failed to expand in America today."

Folk music is expanding in America all the time. There is more diversity in the area of folk music in America today than at any time.

" This is why music has only developed on one side of the political divide as it has."

This is not true because actually the role of folk music as an expression of the left-wing
in the US has broadened and diversified. It is no longer narrowly confined to the left.
Pete Seeger, for example, has been recognized as an important artist by American presidents and has fans from many different perspectives, politically. The only ones who criticize him are those who have a paranoid political agenda themselves. This is the reason there are no folk songs attached to The John Birch Society.
These songs don't exist except as satires.


" This is why folk music has been branded as something those opposing your politics dont feel welcome doing."

This is about attacking the messenger. The only "branding" that has been done historically is by right-wing ideologues who consider "folk music" to be dangerous
or sinister.

"Yes you might think your cultural world view is right, correct, moral however, we live in a world of rich and diverse cultural expressions in which your narrow one is just one and no better than any other. "

With this kind of logic we can equate democracy with Naziism. There has to be a preferred correct moral view between the two. Beheading in a public display for punishment of a crime has to be seen in a moral context and if diversity means accepting this, then as Pete Seeger has said, "I say it's spinach and to hell with it!" (Paraphrasing
the New Yorker article on propaganda from the young child's viewpoint).

"You would be the people who cover up nude statues, fail to collect songs with erotic verses and grind to dust any song that you do not agree with. You by so doing invite the same fate."

I don't see this as valid. People are fortunately more complex than that. Lakoff refers to the "bi-conceptual" as one who might profess a political ideology and behave differently from it in practice. This appraisal appears to be simplistic.

"You my friends are cultural imperialists."

There is no justification for friendship here. I don't think that anyone here on Mudcat
wants to foist their ideology or viewpoint on any one else. We each have our opinions
and in some cases they are well-grounded in reflection and sensible sensitivity.

I see that this post represents a narrow idea of politics, ideologies and appraisal of
what is actually being said here. An attack on Pete Seeger or the Smothers Brothers as being agents of Stalin or reflective of any monolithic political movement is vicious and
cold but most of all has no basis in fact.

Frank

Conrad

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:10 PM

"I don't like all the paintings in the national gallery of art. I don't like the same ones each day. However they all have a right to be there no matter what the message of the artist might have been."

WRONG!!! The choices of what paintings hang are the responsibility of the curator. He or she choses what is shown - based on the criteria of the exhibit and the limitations of space. Not everything gets hung up.


"Music is art politics is just a label and you can always see behind that and find the art."

Exactly. We can find the art behind protest songs in folk music. What are you missing?

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:04 PM

No a different argument but same flys.

Sometimes the views of others are and can still be recognized on an artistic level universally as such.

No one is asking that you agree with them~!

I don't like all the paintings in the national gallery of art. I don't like the same ones each day. However they all have a right to be there no matter what the message of the artist might have been.

Music is art politics is just a label and you can always see behind that and find the art.

Conrad

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Bettynh
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:47 PM

Conrad has taken the argument here

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:40 PM

Same song, 413th verse, could be better, but it's gonna get worse.

The whole thread, in a nutshell; some people don't care to sing songs favorable to racism and warmongering, and they feel no need to extend invitations to racists and warmongers to appear with them on stage; Conrad believes that these people have a deathlock on folk music, and that their behaviour constitutes censorship and "cultural imperialism". On the other side, singing racist material or any other "hate music" is fine art, of no political significance, and should be encouraged for the sake of diversity.

Why is my head spinning?

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:58 AM

Conrad, try reading what others post with an open mind. Note the discussion of 11:18 several above your most recent. We are doing our best to decide what is right at a folk music venue devoted to what you would classify as left-wing environmental causes.

Ignoring the opposition does not make it go away. the question becomes whether or not we wish to give them a platform. One of the most effective techniques politician have in the electoral process is to never mention their opponent by name and to deny them the ability to debate them face to face. In the larger context, though, sunlight is the best sanitizer. That is why we are having the discussion.

In the limited context being discussed here, Would you expect a Tea PArty Rally to invite the New York City Labor Chorus to sing at one of their events? Of course not. In addition to being everything they are against, they have probably booked the site for a specific time and have their own agenda to get through that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:57 AM

No, thank you for making my point!!

Just remember - your culture is but one of many sharing the earth. I'm don't want to force anyone to do anything. Changing the culture means doing things a bit differently.

While you won't admit it, the "withholding" of air time, stage time and tolerance is NOT the issue that you are attempting to paint. Once again, you refuse to acknowledge that you are advocating censorship.   

Free speech is not sharing an opportunity, it is having an opportunity to share.   This forum is a perfect example. You do not have to make an addedum to your post to add an alternate point of view - but I have the opportunity to do so. The "stages" that you feel are being witheld have historically been withheld from people like Pete Seeger.   I will fight any attempt to censor people like Pete, and you are trying to censor him.

Shame on you Conrad. Play fair, or don't play at all. You are sounding like a spoiled child who wants to change the rules of the game so that you can score points.   The playing field should be level, and it is, so long as people like you do not attempt to restrict the freedom of speech. Your spin doctoring won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:08 AM

Yes! Intolerant of the attitude that if you don't agree with a song you cant listen to, join in or play it. I admit it!

Thank you for making my point that those who are in positions to safeguard the rights of both sides of any agrument to compose and play their music freely are witholding air time, stage time and tolerance from all but those they agree with.

Just remember your culture is but one of many sharing the earth.
Remember also that I dont want to force anyone to do anything however some paths may be recommended. Sometimes changing the culture means doing things a bit differently.

Conrad

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:49 AM

You my friend are a spin doctor.

You are trying to censor folk music.

You are putting restraints on the free speech that is entitled to Pete Seeger, the Smothers Brothers and others BY FORCING THEM TO FASHION THEIR MESSAGE TO YOUR STANDARD. You completely igonre the fact that THEY were the ones who were marginalized and THEY were the opposing view that was given a forum. Now, you say that they should "share" that forum - when the opposing view already had forums of their own.

No one, other than yourself, has said that artists of any stripe should not have a stage.   YOU refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between being given a chance to share a message and having to tolerate the message. Just as you seem to have tuned out to the message of the left, many of us have expressed an intolerance to HATE and VIOLENCE. This has not been a discussion of health care reform or immigration laws where opposing viewpoints are shared. We have been discussing FACISIM.

NO ONE, other than yourself, has made a claim that folk songs is anything but art. YOU are the one who refuses to accept that art and politics are allowed to mix.

You have expressed a twisted sense of "equality" where you are expecting people to accept facism and hatred as something that should be tolerated. Sorry, but the rest of the world will continue to fight these crimes against humanity while you fool yourself into thinking you are learning something from it.

You keep spinning the message we have been trying to share with you - we are not the ones who are intolerant. We are the ones who are imploring the sharing the wealth of cultural diversity.

Sorry Conrad, but if there is a "cultural imperialist" in this discussion it has been you.   No matter how you try to twist this around, it is obvious to the reader that you are making statements that are simply not true and twisting the truth to fit your own designs.   

You are exhibiting a high degree of intolerance in each message you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:16 AM

Well we have learned a few things here-

-No one has to give equal time to the opposing view

-however many here think that it is not a good thing to work hard to bring in opposing views.

-Many here believe that no one with views they do not agree with should be given a stage anywhere.

-One should never sing songs that one does not agree with not even simple sing along for arts sake.

-People are generally opposed although there have been a few in support of using folk music as a way to exchange views in dialog from one side to another in an open free accessible stage or media.

-Some people seem to think that a folk song is not art nor music but simply a sort of incantation that projects political views above all else. Therefore singing a song that you don't agree with will be dangerous to everyone.

-There is little appreciation for songs of all political flavors as woerks of art and literature and that it is wrong to accept the equal validity of the hopes of all peoples singing together.


This my friends is why folk music has failed to expand in America today. This is why music has only developed on one side of the political divide as it has. This is why folk music has been branded as something those opposing your politics dont feel welcome doing.

Yes you might think your cultural world view is right, correct, moral however, we live in a world of rich and diverse cultural expressions in which your narrow one is just one and no better than any other.

You would be the people who cover up nude statues, fail to collect songs with erotic verses and grind to dust any song that you do not agree with. You by so doing invite the same fate.

You my friends are cultural imperialists.

Conrad

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:07 AM

mousethief is correct.

Pursuant to the fact that I spent some years in broadcasting as an radio announcer, producer, and news director:

Regarding the broadcast media:   The Federal Communications Commission requires that if a station presents a person or program that represents a controversial position, that station must provide equal time for the opposite view to be expressed—if the advocates of that point of view desire to do so.

But—a private individual who owns a club, theater, or other venue is not required to give "equal time to answer." He or she is, in no way, required to give a platform to views with which they do not agree.

In the case of the Smothers Brothers show, the network, CBS, could have been required to give equal time. But—NOT the Smothers Brothers. Or Pete Seeger.

One might note that, at present, the FCC seems to be asleep at the switch when you watch Fox News Service with their "fair and balanced news" and note how incredibly biased it is.

I am sole arbiter of the message on whatever bumper-sticker I may wish to put on my car. No "equal time to answer" required.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:46 AM

Conrad: Did Seeger and smothers censor which is to say deny others access to their stages?

That's not what censor means. A private individual is under no obligation to make available to all applicants any means they have of disseminating information. You might as well say that if I put a "Vote Republican" sign in my front yard, I am censoring the Democrats unless I also allow them to put a "Vote Democrat" sign in my front yard. The Smothers Brothers are not required to give equal time to all political points of view on their television show, and failing to do so is not "censorship." They don't do anything to stop their political rivals from speaking out on the stage next door. If they had power over all the television shows in the country and imposed a moratorium on whomever they disliked, that would be censorship. But in general "censorship" is something that governments do, not private individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:18 PM

A propos of of this thread, there is a very heated discussion going on among the partipants in the Clearwater Revival Working Group. I would not be taking this public except that someone else already outed it.

The Tea Party in the Mid Hudson valley area has announced that they will have a table at the activists area at the festival. Needless to say, many people have their backs up and wish to ban them. My response is more in line with what Pete and Toshi did [cited above].
I believe we should allow them to come but also invite the Coffee Party people to come and put their tables next to each other.

Who knows, they may even talk with each other or...God Forbid, learn something instead of ranting at all the Lefties around them. The marketplace of ideas, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:46 PM

Conrad, you keep repeating (speaking of mantras) the canard that Seeger and other "liberal" folk singers dominated the media and continue to do so. That you said it in the first place shows a really abysmal knowledge of history, and to keep saying it when those who were there (which you were not) describe how it was anything but the way you keep saying it was displays—    Well, I won't say what it displays, least Little Hawk come on this thread and go "Tsk! Tsk!" at me, as he is wont to do whenever I call things by their right names.

I first saw Pete Seeger in concert in Seattle in 1954 (the year, according to what you have said, when you were born). He was on the Blacklist at the time, but he was sponsored by the newly formed Pacific Northwest Folklore Society. We sponsored the concert, not because Pete was a political figure, but because he was an excellent and knowledgeable singer of folk songs, and we wanted to hear him. The concert was held off-campus and he had a relatively small audience of 90 people. He sang for over two hours, and during that time, he sang maybe three songs that might be construed as having political overtones, but he put all three of them into their historical context.

It was NOT a political rally.

We had a party after the concert, during which we got a chance to meet and talk with him. Pete didn't talk about politics at all. And during the party, he was friendly, outgoing, and generous. In fact, toward the end of the party we sat around cross-legged on the living room floor (Pete too!) while he showed me and a couple other people some tricky guitar licks!

I saw him several more times, and the same thing pertains. None of his concerts were what anyone could call "political rallies." This, despite the fact that there were a lot of men in grey suits and red neckties sitting around listening grimly, and neither smiling nor laughing even when Pete sang about the "Foolish Frog" and "The Cumberland Mountain Bear Chase."

As far as this forum being dominated by "liberals," if you seriously believe that, you haven't been reading many threads. Certainly not very carefully. Besides, due to the nature of the forum and the fact that it is essentially an unmoderated "free-for-all," the idea that it is "dominated" by any particular viewpoint is just plain foolish. In fact, there have been quite a number of contributors from the UK who are pretty obviously associated with the BNP, although they won't admit it.

And I'm just a bit suspicious about you, considering that your main thrust has been to insist on tolerance for fascists.

Assuming that you are not a member of such an organization or movement, but are just ignorant and naïve, to get an idea of the kind of people in whose behalf you are speaking out, I suggest you see where that ideology can lead—and where it has led in fairly recent history; within the memories of many people still living.

Get yourself a copy of THIS book and read it cover to cover. Then you may not be so ignorant about what you are in favor of promoting. If you don't want to buy the book, your local library undoubtedly has a copy. It's pretty much the definitive work on the subject.

Also, contrive to get a copy of THIS. Warning: this book is not for the squeamish! It will show you World War II up close and personal! Get it. Read it. Look at the pictures.

If you have the guts!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 06:39 PM

Vegan bologna REALLY sucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 06:08 PM

And, Conrad, just to keep the record straight, the words are "bologna" and "vegan." Make a note of it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 06:02 PM

Conrad, lest you think getting hinky is going to lend support to your argument, "aesthetic" is the adjective form of the word "aesthetics" (noun), and it is not required that it be capitalized. Acceptable modern spellings: "esthetic" (adj.) and "esthetics (n.)."

I don't need to look it up . I know what it means. I took a couple of courses in the subject while I was attending the University of Washington School of Music.

If you don't like what I'm saying, then try to refute it, if you can. But lay off the feeble attempts at personal slurs.

Busy right now. I see this thread is well in hand, but I'm liable to be back later.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:37 PM

Conrad: There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing a stage with someone who sings songs with meanings you don't understand or like.

There's nothing wrong with it, true. But that doesn't mean it has to happen. It doesn't mean anybody has an obligation to make it happen. Look, there's nothing wrong with riding a unicycle while picking your nose with a retractable pen. Nothing wrong with it at all. But that doesn't mean anybody's going to do it. We can invent "there's nothing wrong with it" scenarios until our hands bleed but so what? It means nothing. Zilch. There's nothing wrong with people seeing the world the way you do. They just don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:35 PM

No one is abusing their forum - that is where your entire argument falls apart. YOU are the only one who set limitations on what the forum should be.

You say that there is nothing wrong with sharing a stage with someone whose songs and meanings you do not agree with. In print, that sounds like a noble idea - but reality shows that doesn't make sense. Would you recommend singing songs about pedophila alongside nursery songs?

Your entire premise is faulted because you created the critera. You have been shown how one-sided your view of the world is, but you continue to disregard and ignore questions placed to you and end up responsing with more rhetoric.

There is nothing wrong with having a forum to say what you wish to say - and there is nothing wrong with saying something through song or art.

You are simply wrong Conrad. It has gone beyond your opinion, you have created criteria that is unjust. Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:21 PM

its not the power of music so much as the abuse of forums and media to motivate that this is about. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing a stage with someone who sings songs with meanings you don't understand or like. So why did it not happen more often. I think because some people think they have a monopoly on the right. And others think songs are voodoo incantations.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 03:41 PM

"Songs dont kill people people kill people."

No one ever clained that they do. YOU made that statement. Guns don't kill people either.

Songs inspire. Songs motivate. Songs get people thinking.

Face it Conrad, if you were tolerant of songs and really belived what you said, you would have had no reason to start this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 03:16 PM

Songs dont kill people people kill people.

Songs are just songs.

Perhaps it is a great tune and good poetry- one can recognze it as a treasure at that level alone without thinking about politics =probably the song is not even in english!

The word is Aesthetics look it up.

Amazed to see that folks here seem to think songs are some sort of evil curse or prayer. Interesting.

The oscar meyer song is catchy and cute. Brilliant- its about ballogna does it make people go out and kill animals>? Is it threatening to veggans? Does it cause kids who eat the stuff to have high fat levels in their blood? Obesity? Does it make everyone drop all their food and go out and subsist on ballogna.....

Ha!

So if you sing a song that you dont agree with people go out as in the Monte Python scotsman sketch raise their arms and kill people.

Wild!

What a group of anti free will folk this thread has uncovered.

Feel free though to sing your own mantras I'm not hugging anyone though as a result. I might tap my foot, dance about or enjoy the rhyme scheme.

Conrad

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 02:11 PM

I just heard this on the news this morning.

There is a song that has been going the rounds in South Africa for the last few years. It's called "Kill the Boer." It must be a folk song. Nobody knows who wrote it, and it is sung by some black South Africans.

During these last few years, some 3,000 white farmers in South Africa have been brutally killed.

Conrad, can you explain to me what the aesthetic values of this song might be? I'm afraid it escapes me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:55 PM

Conrad, I will not apologize for my intolerance of stupid ideas and needless "red-baiting".
We can agree, however, to disagree as person to person. I don't think "tolerance" is a be-all or end-all to world peace. I don't tolerate fascism, cruelty, violence, prejudice or those who find it necessary to "beat their drum" in expressing their ideas.

People sing songs for different reasons. What must be "gotten over" is the idea that
there is a monolithic way of viewing these reasons.

I like to sing songs that carry positive messages of peace, love and justice because
they are important to me.

A simplistic analysis of Pete's contribution to the music world is not to be tolerated
for any reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: Bettynh
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:56 AM

"Such intolerance of the views and customs and beliefs of others that you do not agree with will never move the world closer together."

In this very thread several members who disagree adamantly about many things have found common ground in cornbread and beer, Conrad.

You refuse to support or clarify your argument/position/whatever you think. Your tactics of random bluster and vague attack are pretty common, though. Do you know the work of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh?

Thanks for nudging me into an afternoon of watching Pete Seeger and the Smothers brothers. I didn't enjoy the skinhead music at all but, thanks to you, I know it's there.

With that said, I'm done. You're wrong, Conrad, on many levels. I'm pretty convinced that argument is futile at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:23 AM

The only person I see being intolerant is you Conrad. You are the person who is asking an artist to censor their music. You are the one who started this thread with your opinion that music and politics should not mix - when historical fact shows that art has ALWAYS been connected with art.

Anyone can sing songs of hatred if they wish. Anyone can protest songs of hatred - just as you can protest the songs of peace.

NO ONE should ever join in on a chorus of something they do not believe in. IF you feel differently, you are in an extreme minority.

Your opinion has been voiced, your position has been deflated, get over it.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: *#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: 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: 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 - 09:02 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 - 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: 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: 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: *#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: 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: 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.