 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right?
|
|
|
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: *#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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: *#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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: *#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: *#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 - 07:48 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: *#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: 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: 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: *#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: 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: 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: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:13 PM seeger was a great guy who did many things wonderous but sharing the stage with those with whom he disagreed.... I don't think it ever happened.... do you know the definition of hyporcrite? seeger often preached that we should all come together.... What then was his problem? Don't think he ever shared the stage with an opposing political view. Ok then prove me wrong! Cant get people together unless you share the media which he and smothers and othes dominated..... So what is the end view.... a man who brought people together or a man who insisted on one point of view. Bringing one point of view together at the expense of all others is not an achievement it is manipulation of the media. No differnet than nationalist germany. of course you could prove me wrong! Go for it! Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:09 PM "Seeger did many fine things and its a long list" Not really. He played banjo and wrote a book of instructions. He made friends and was loyal to them. When attacked verbally, he invoked his Constitutional right of free speech (as opposed to right to refuse self-incriminalization). He built 2 houses and a boat. He is a husband and father. For a long time he wrote a column in a magazine with a tiny circulation. He's lived a long time. He traveled with his family when he could. He has been consistent in his thinking, and admitted he made mistakes. It's not what Pete has done for us, it's who he IS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: emjay Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:50 PM There are some really strange statements and semantics on this thread. A Southern gospel convention where an athiest is invited on stage? I have never heard of that! Or that Hank Willimas Jr. or Toby Keith invites a lefty.... I'll be darned. That would be totally unexpected by audience and by lefty, wouldn't it? Egad. None of the C&W crowd had any time nor even kind words for the Dixie Chicks. And the straight gospel crowd doesn't even like the tongues talkers (and vice-versa) let alone the athiests. And what on earth is a "liberal fascist?" Isn't that an oxymoron? Perhaps the writer meant an extreme fascist -- or it is considered fascist to push ones leftist views? Pete Seeger is a great American hero who has spent a lifetime singing and doing what he believes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:30 PM Conrad, read a little history, for cryin' out loud!!!! On August 18th, 1955, Pete Seeger was subpoenaed to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee, and as a result of that encounter, he was banned from appearing on television, his recordings were banned from radio, and most organizations considered him "too controversial" and cancelled his concert bookings. This lasted for quite a while. In 1963, "ABC Hootenanny" wanted Joan Baez to appear on their show, but she, and a number of other singers, refused until they booked Pete Seeger, which they (ABC) refused to do. Finally--Finally—on September of 1967, at the insistence of the Smothers Brothers, Pete was allowed by CBS to appear on their September 10th show. When Pete sang "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy," CBS cut it from the show. At the Smothers Brothers' insistence, he reappeared on their February 25th, 1968 show where he was allowed to sing the song. So, Conrad--you tell me who is censoring whom here, and who is denying whom the right to appear on stage and sing what they wish? And who is "monopolizing" the stage? Get a grip, man! Don Firth P. S. By the way, "We Shall Overcome" was an anthem for the Civil Rights Movement. I don't consider the Civil Rights Movement to be a negative. Do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: frogprince Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:06 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: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:52 PM "What, exactly, monopoly are you talking about? Consider the songs "We Shall Overcome" and "Joe Hill." Explain why they are without power." Conrad will never admit that the monopoly came from the "other side" that limited opportunties for appearances on the radio. Conrad fails to understand that having an opportunity to share views IS the sharing of that stage by the owners of the platform - not the artists who are using their opportunity. Conrad will never admit that folk music comes from a community, and the community that "created" Joe Hill and we Shal Overcome is a folk community. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:25 PM "When one monopolizes the stages and media it is not good but songs themselves are harmless" Good grief. The Smothers Brothers Show was an hour a week 40 years ago. Pete Seeger's tv appearances were probably less than 100 over his lifetime of 90 plus years. Their radio appearances and recorded music are similarly minute, comparatively speaking. Pete wrote a column for Singout magazine, read by a limited audience. What, exactly, monopoly are you talking about? Consider the songs "We Shall Overcome" and "Joe Hill." Explain why they are without power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: olddude Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:16 AM someone said before, If they pay to go to a John Prine concert, they sure as heck hope he will monopolize the stage. That is what people came to see and hear and PAID for. I would be pretty upset if I paid good money and ended up seeing the stage shared by someone else for half the concert ... It is their concert, pay and go see them or don't pay and don't see them. The beauty of freedom is we have the choice on how to spend our money and what entertainment we choose to spend it on ... right |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:05 AM I hardly think the Smothers and Seeger "monopolized" the stage and media - the opposite is the reality. I just could not picture the dorky type of concert that Conrad is trying to push. Who in their right mind would enjoy such an event? Music is not a debate. Art, literature and music are the perspective of the artist who is imparting their craft - no one is expecting a balanced picture, and if they received it, they would be experiencing something that is hypocritical and a lie. Mark Twain once said that people who do not read newspapers are un-informed, and people who do read newspapers are mis-informed. His point was that the reader needs to seek out their own balance, not expect to have it handed to them. Conrad, you are twisting in the wind with your opinion on this one. You are certainly entitled to think as you wish, but that doesn't mean you are correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:49 AM Do you honestly believe that? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:29 AM When one monopolizes the stages and media it is not good but songs themselves are harmless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:14 AM But Conrad......Isn't that the point you're trying to make? You're saying singing is harmful as it can influence someone in one direction so the other side needs equal time? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM Only if they keep their hands to themselves and are peaceful. No one is advocating putting up with any violence. Surely singing songs is not harmful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Don Firth Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:32 PM Hold hands with fascists? I've heard this story a number of times, but to make sure I had it right, I looked it up in a little book entitled The Power of Stupidity. A scorpion wants to cross a river, but it can't swim. It asks a frog for help. The frog is apprehensive, but the scorpion promises, "I won't sting you. If I did, I would drown!" So the frog takes the scorpion on his back and ferries him across the river. When they reach the other bank, before he gets off the frog's back, the scorpion stings the frog.Look at history. Look at the nature of fascism. Then, think about the frog and the scorpion. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: Bettynh Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:57 PM EB, he's good practice. I can't argue coherently about health care or business practices, but Conrad uses some of the same techniques as those I feel are wrong about those issues. So, Conrad, you said, "Seeger did many fine things and its a long list." Let's hear your list. "When did pete seeger hold hands with anyone he did not agree with" Does shaking the hand of the man who came to kill you count? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Seeger Smothers Party- Left=right? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:47 PM "These are good good goals however you can not operationalize them without taking first step of inclusion, sharing the media, the stage, the dance." You are a step behind. The first step was having Seeger and the Smothers GET a stage to share their opinions - they were the ones who were excluded from the media, stage and dance. There were not JUST singing to those who agreed with their view. It just isn't true that that they were preaching to the choir. Even if they were, that choir deserves a forum too. You keep failing to recognize that one basic FACT. |
