No. In this day and age, what the Beatles did back then seems so very tame
in comparison. :)
I meant where were ou as in when in the era & where in the attutudes. . .
I was not around yet. :)
But how do you feel about the parental hysteria overt groups like the Beatles (new, innovative, different, challenging)
I considered the music mellow, mainstream, & as inoffensive as you get, but I guess just one or two trilling riffs is all it took to get certain parents all
afluster!
Maybe they didn't like the later, psychedelic stuff the Beatles did but my understanding is that they were up in arms about them long before then.
Pretty much from day one, mostly because they all had long hair (Elvis, their hero, always had short/nbet hair, & no facial hair, so what was with the got tam Beatles? These people still say the Beatles began the erosion of American moral values upon arrival in 1964.
I say their OTT response is what started the 'erosion' if anything.
One older Catholic friend pointed out how if you look in TV Guide, at movie ratings, for movies made pre-1964, most are 3-5, but post-1064, they're 1-3.
I have spot-checked thatr on occasion, & it seems to hold up, but I don't feel this single datum is enough to state a position regarding causation.
Gotta have all pertinent facts, like how at5 one time they said that the birth control pill caused skin cancer because the majority of women taking the BCP develped skin cancer at a notably higher rate of incidence than the non-BCP using public.
Turned out that correlation does not equal causation; after a proper scientific(following the proper rules for such) study, it was determined that the type of woman who used the BCP were also the same type to sunbathe in bikinis more than the general, perhaps more priggish, population.
Now, I love exposed female skin muchly,but I don't love women geting cancer for the sake of my visual pleasure.
I'm likewise careful regarding who I potentially get pregnant (limited to only my wife now, but even in my oat-sowing years, I wasn't out relying on BCP takers to take care of matters)
Likely there was parental banning of innovations in classical, too, back then when it was new & current. . .
I cannot remember his name now, but there was a very controversial
violinist back in the day. I forget the story now, but he supposedly had women fainting in the aisles. This would have been sometime before 1900 (maybe before 1800!).
I think I've read something on that, too, but likewise don't recall. . .
So I checked with my buddy Gopgle & found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_concerts_with_an_unruly_a udience_response
I'm not able to find the one you mentioned; nothing imvolving fainting in that list.
Try again. . .
A comment from a senior member on talkclassical.com said:
"Almost everything he did was unexpected -- and still is on first listen if you're deeply immersed in it. It's those passages where he leads you along and you think he's going to resolve a phrase on the tonic or root chord as most others composers of the time did, but then goes off on a completely surprising tangent. Combine that with the headbanging thrust, Thrust, THRUST of his sforzando passages and he must have had people fainting in the aisles."
I can see that -- any kind of jumngle beat got the hoity toity types upset, as it put them in mind of Negroes from the African jungles, & HORRORS, they're WILD, don't you know, & their tall, strong, muscular bodies lead previously perfectly holy women to have sexual feelings & thoughts, so obviously they have the Devil in them! /sarcasm
I'm fine with lookikng out for what young people are exposed to, as it can lea
to them losing their cuildhood/youth too early. . .
A lot of it can. I feel like today, most parents do little to keep them from being exposed.
You know it! It was prertyu basic when I grew up in the '70s -- in my home, we knew what was good & what wasn't & watched/read/listened to the latter at our own risk of parental disciplinary peril.
As an adult, out of the house (I left home at 12, to begin my independence), I watched/reasd whatever I lked, but I was aware of the content & how it might affect me &/or others, so you'd never have seen me cranking up 2 Live Crew lyrics loud enough for a block of social housing with every house having a minimium of 2 children., as one teen girl resident did (the most vulgar lyrics: involving rape & physical abuse of women. She seemed to have no clue they were speaking of beating & raping HER. Or maybe that was the pleasure for her?)
I was into music most adults hated (speed metal), but you never heard such vulgarity in the lyrics or interviews! Yes the beat was very definitely sexual, but so what? One always has a choice whether to give in to thoughts & inclinations, whether music inducxed or not.
My theory is the industries (film & music) wanted those ratings in lace, but were happy to make it seem as if the censors did it!
Yes, the explicit lyrics labels. I am certain they sold a few records.
& to the ones least able to handle them responsibly, usually ("ooo-wee, this one says **** & *****; I love it!")
I've had explicit comedy records & videos, but I'm above the visceral aspects. It's more "so what? they just used a different word choice than others."
I can translate any joke into a clean POR a filthy version quite easily, on the fly. . . :) & neither version is a different joke -- the humour, to me, is based on the setup & twist, not in the wording used; usually. A couple do rely on the sweet build up & the BA-BAM of a three year old blonde girl using the F- word inappropriately! But they could be dited to a lowe level (from PG-17 to PG-13 by anyone with a decent command of the English language); it all depends on your target audience, & your overall goals.
e.g. I love George Carlin, & I knowe he's rejected by many because he swears so9 much (look up "7 words you can't say on television" for the definitive example); I understand, now, that he WANTS thos types to avoid his performances. He's up there revealing truths to the hardworking downtrodden in a language most recognize & use daily, & he's trying to reserve any special insights to them only, not to the, largely rich old white, establishment whom he rejects, for the most part.
He plants parody ideas in opeople's gheads, like the one of the fat rich golfer on his private club's golf course, smoking a cuban cigar(banned to everyone else) as "fat white businessman sucking on a big brown d***")
That's an image that stays with you -- definitely part of his intent.
If the fat whte buysi9nessman cares about the label/imagery people have of him, he can change it; maybe sell off that gaudy expanse of mostly unused land, to build housing for those who need mnore affordable & available housing, espexcially the homeless, & maybe observe the same [former] Cuban embargo everyone else must, & chew cheap gum instead of sucking on a big brown phallic shaped item, causing air pollution for all to 'enjoy'. . .
Works for me, but I guess I'm a bit of a rebel, too, just not as funny, gfanous, or successful as the late George Carlins, whom I nominated for a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize, not realizug they don't do those.
Your friend,
<+]:{)}
Cyberpope, Bishop of ROM
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)