Category: Let's talk
When many people hear the song Imagine, by John Lennon, they automatically start singing along, or at least feel that it presents a positive message and a worldview with which they can agree. I, in contrast, see a very dangerous viewpoint in the lyrics, one that may or may not have been intentional, but one which should not be ignored, especially as so many seem to subscribe to this view. In this short essay, I will examine the words and their darker side.
"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky"
In the first line, he strips the world of religion. While it is certainly true that much death has come about, due to the convictions of certain groups that only their beliefs are true and that they must convert others to them, this does not inherently make religion bad. Many people have also died from stabbings. Yet most people would not argue for a banning of knives of all kinds because of that. Religion plays a very important role in the lives of many people. It not only answers fundamental questions which science cannot answer, but provides them with friends, hope, and even jobs at times! A world without religion is a cold, dark, place of lonliness, where there is no hope, and nothing better to look forward to upon our deaths. It takes away the mysteries of life and replaces them with the mundane, with us humans at the top of everything. I'm sure I need not elaborate on the problems that last idea can cause.
"Imagine all the people
Living for today..."
This is technically part of the first verse, yet is so provocative that it deserves its' own paragraph. Sadly, the results of this idea can be seen in the attitudes of many people today. If it's broken, don't fix it. Throw it away and get another one. If it's slightly out-of-date, even if it works, throw it away. After all, you don't want to be seen as having something old, especially when the new version of the product has so many bells and whistles. This blatent disregard for moderation, as has been demonstrated, leads to a society of disposability. Products are now cheaper, but along with that, comes horrible quality. Furthermore, this demand for ever cheaper products leads to outsourcing and the loss of domestic jobs. This idea of living for today can also be extended in how many people treat the environment and act towards the nation. Thanks to our need for immediate satisfaction, we, as a race, have managed to wipe out thousands of species, Gods only know how much land, how many trees etc. and we just keep on doing it. After all, if you don't worry about tomorrow, you're only focusing on the shorterm, and in that light, everything is fine. Only it's not going to be for future generations. And those who steal from the nation have also lost the ability to care for the future, being so absorbed in the present and their own selfish gains.
"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too"
As if banning religion and consideration of the future weren't enough, these ideas continue to the very notion of country! As anyone who knows me is aware, I hold the idea of country to be among the most important in existance. As a nationalist, the idea of a world without countries is like one without air or water! Country is what gives us pride, culture, history, and a sense of belonging, not to mention positive competitiveness. By that, I mean that those of us who are true patriots always want to do better than those who came before us, in protecting, preserving, and defending our nation. So we study hard, join the military, write books, give lectures, and/oror even just pass on our knowledge to future generations. The land is sacred and it belongs to those who love it, not to any foreigner who wishes to make some quick money and leave or to some union whose members wish to use it for their own means!
"Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
As before, the previous two lines came from the last verse, but they're tied in with the idea of one world. While I am not strictly a New World Order conspiracist, I do believe that globalisation is destroying individual nations, and that it's essential to fight against such ideas with all that we know. Otherwise, we could easily fall into the trap of the Brave New World Syndrome. If, for the sake of argument, all national boarders were eliminated, and patriotism was destroyed, it may, indeed, bring peace. But this is a forced peace, a poisoned peace, one that comes from, as he put it, "Nothing to kill or die for". No one loves war, but as John Stuart Mill said, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." He also has nothing to bring him true pride, no real convictions, since, after all, the problems of the world would supposedly be solved. This means a static existance, with no challenges and where no one can rise above things to become heroic. It leaves no place for earning honour and glory, only the loss of both and forced sameness.
"Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"
On the surface, this sounds great. It would certainly eliminate the society of disposability that I mentioned earlier, and people wouldn't need to worry about money or competing with anyone else. To be fair, there are certain societies which exist without the idea of ownership. But these are few and far between. Humanity has evolved, and with that evolution came the idea of possessing things and of responsibility. If no laws existed pertaining to property, it would then be perfectly legal for someone to enter your home, in the middle of the night, and sleep on your couch. Furthermore, he could stay there, eating up your food, using up your electricity, and creating a mess all over the place. If he was more dangerous, he could even steal from you or destroy your things, since they wouldn't belong to you but to everyone, meaning that they would be his as well. Given the abundance of wealth which we now possess, people in such a society would then feel that they were completely entitled not to work at all, and could then live off others. And no! I do not mean it as the American Libertarians do. I do not take issue with the needy, the disabled etc. receiving government assistance. I merely mean that everyone could be slackers, for no reason at all, other than they really would have no reason to work, unless the pool of supplies got low. This would destroy any need for innovation, frugality, moderation, and the like. While a society of pure consumerism is bad, so is one of anarchy and total excess.
During The Revolution of 21 April, which technically ended in 1974, The Beatles were banned. Looking at this song by John Lemmon, one of its' most prominant members, it's easy to see why. These ideas are what's destroying the world today. Peace is good and desirable, as is the idea of selflessness and working within your means. But there needs to be a balance, and it simply cannot be found within this worldview.
Wow! Did you shoot John Tiffanitsa ?
Serio7usly. His concepts are probably good ones, but not for everyone. The song is mainly about stopping the strife that is caused by the things he says to do without. God if you will.
I'm sure he meant it in that way. But I can also see the other side of things. I found that the song encapsulates many ideas held by people today.
I need to pick over one little point, as this is the only part of the original post I've read so far. Firstly, and maybe I'm missing a bit of a something here, but I always thought what Lennon was saying overall was, "hey people, why don't all of you cut the crap and try to get along for once, please?"
Now, no religion? I really don't think things would be as dark or as bad as you think they might. First of all, if the only reason why we're on earth is to have something better to look forward to when we die, that's mightily bleak. Life here on earth may not be Utopia, I'll grant you this, and any of us can reel out a nice phone-book-sized tome about all the craptasticity on the planet, but the cool thing is, that's not all there is. I'd say there's an equally voluminous list of reasons why life on earth is wonderful and precious and worth living despite everything else, even if such things might be considered small things to some. Things do not need to be deep and weighty to be thought of as worthwhile. So this atheist does not worry about any kind of life after my life where things are better because at least in my sphere of influence, things are pretty damn peachy-keen. But see, I do not feel it is my responsibility to carry the planet on my shoulders and solve all its ills. I do what I can in my decidedly small sphere of influence, and most of the time I get it right and sometimes I fail, and that's life. I do not need fear of some hell place or promises of some paradise and immortality to look forward to, life is good.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that religion is manmade. Even if that's the case, it does provide many people with a sense of community, joy, hope, and something to look forward to. Religion and philosophy are ways of answering things which science can't answer. They also provide us humans with a means of expression and creativity. Obviously, we can create things and express ourselves secularly as well. But many are drawn to religion for a variety of reasons, and I can't help but think that it's a part of human nature.
That said, I completely agree about the little things in life. Sometimes, we all need to step back and enjoy them. Today, people rush to get nowhere, or are going in five different directions at once, and it seems that no one has the time to sit down and enjoy nature, or their families, or even the taste and aroma of a cup of coffee or tea. They pour it, swig it down and go on with their lives. To me, that's not really living. It's merely existing. The fact that you found inner peace and contentment is no small feat. Most people wish they had that. I also don't think that anyone should try to carry the problems of the world on their shoulders. We're all human and can only do what we can do.
But if you remove religion you remove that "if you aren't a... and you aren't going to... than you aren't worth my time and I'm going to try my damnest to change you are kill you trying. Where is the love in that?
If you knew you'd only have one day you'd tip your waiter better and not snap at her because she didn't hurry to get your second cup of coffee even though you see the place is full and she's short handed? You woke up with your nose out of joint, so you're taking it out on someone else.
No country? No problem. You're a Jew, Greek, European, and I hate you because of it. Don't you know that being an American is the only and best way? I'll just drop a bomb on you to teach you that.
You strip the world of this and children aren't raised with the good and kind hate for others that aren't as they think they should be. We are killing each other with our beliefs, not loving them.
I do rather see both Tiff's and Godzilla's point here. But I would like to chime in by saying this. Quite a few times on these boards I've heard it said that we who are religious only look forward to the better times after our deaths. That is liberally paraphrasing, granted. But I would really like to point out that, at least in my case anyway, my own life is pretty darn great too. Certainly I'm curious to know what comes after this is all over, and certainly I believe it will be something worth looking forward to. But that doesn't mean I'm not living my life too, enjoying each passing day. I'm not sure if this is a misconception some people have, but just because one believes in a life beyond mortality doesn't mean they aren't fully committed to living life. I know some people are completely okay with the idea of this life being all there is. More power too them. For me though it is rather unfathomable. Just as unfathomable as my views are to the opposing ones I'm sure.
I don't really think your analasys of this song is what Lennon was going for, but then I don't know the man myself. This is certainly an interesting viewpoint though and I enjoyed reading it.
I do rather see both Tiff's and Godzilla's point here. But I would like to chime in by saying this. Quite a few times on these boards I've heard it said that we who are religious only look forward to the better times after our deaths. That is liberally paraphrasing, granted. But I would really like to point out that, at least in my case anyway, my own life is pretty darn great too. Certainly I'm curious to know what comes after this is all over, and certainly I believe it will be something worth looking forward to. But that doesn't mean I'm not living my life too, enjoying each passing day. I'm not sure if this is a misconception some people have, but just because one believes in a life beyond mortality doesn't mean they aren't fully committed to living life. I know some people are completely okay with the idea of this life being all there is. More power too them. For me though it is rather unfathomable. Just as unfathomable as my views are to the opposing ones I'm sure. Sorry to go off topic like this - as if we don't have enough of these detours) but it was brought up, so I just wanted to say that.
I don't really think your analasys of this song is what Lennon was going for, but then I don't know the man myself. The beatles certainly do have some ....... unique lyrics, to say the least. So who knows. This is certainly an interesting viewpoint though and I enjoyed reading it.
I don't know how much I can add to what's being said here, but I will say that this is one of my favorite songs, so I was rather shocked when I read your views on it. True, the concept of utopia is a pipe dream, and maybe it wouldn't be a good thing, but honestly, you're being very bitter about something that was meant to help anchor people in times of crisis. There was so much turbulance during that time period, both in the world and in Lennon's own personal life, what with the Beatles breaking up and all, and yes, you can argue that he wasn't exactly a nice person. There's plenty of proof of that if you want to look into it. But let's get back to the topic at hand.
In a nutshell, I think all he was trying to say is that the world needs to be improved, and it would take something as drastic as wiping all that which is causing strife away and starting over. Of course, no mortal human has the power to do that, and I'm sure he was quite aware of that fact. Still, he tried to paint a brighter picture of hope, something for people to hold onto. As I said, when I listen to this song, it uplifts me. It radiates hope. The ideas might be misguided, as I said, because I don't think utopia is attainable or even desirable. You're quite right to say that eliminating all the bad things would probably not only lower morale in general, but make it so that people had nothing to live for. When you're passionate about things that are wrong around you, whether you're religious or not, it can either motivate you to do the best you can with your own life, or it can depress and paralyze you to the point of complete immobilization, seeing as how there really is a lot of bad things we could say about society. Take that away and you'll still have those who are trudging the low road, but how many people would actually take the high road when standards are lowered and everything is peaceful?
So, you're right and you're wrong. For one thing, religion is not a necessity. There are plenty of well-adjusted atheists, and some not so satisfied religious folks, and everything in between. Also, I think you've misunderstood the bit about possessions. I think what he meant is that in a world where you wouldn't need or want anything, you would feel no need to loot or steal. You would be satisfied by something else other than what you have. No need for greed or hunger--because something would fill you, and greed would be a useless emotion in a peaceful world. I know this makes it sound as if I'm saying that he meant that humans would be omnipotent, and I'm honestly not sure. On one hand, I would think not, since he obviously didn't want religion to be part of the world. On the other hand, I feel very strongly that what he meant is something like I'm saying. Now, what exactly could take the place of things, of wants and needs, I have no idea. Obviously I can't ask him. But I sometimes wish I did know.
Now, I'm going to play my copy of Imagine that I have on a 45 and then head off to bed.
Never got through the entire song, Lennon's voice has always kinda made me cringe. Not as much as Yoko, but still...
Oh God, Yoko is utterly talentless. I have no idea who the hell told her she could sing, but obviously, they must have been smoking something special. Lol.
forereel, that was a very thought-provoking and well-written response. Certainly, these things can and do lead to hate. But I don't think that banning them completely is the answer. Knowing human nature, particularly when we're in large groups, we'd probably find other reasons to hate. Oh, your a man and your hair is long, so I hate you. You're using old tech and mine is brand new, so you're stupid. You're wearing clothing with holes in them, so you're definitely poor and uneducated. Stuff like that happens all the time. The key here is tolerance and education. You can be religious and/or patriotic and not hate.
The_Blind_Guardian, thank you for pointing out that fact about religious people. Not all of us think only look forward to life after death. Some religions don't even believe in an afterlife. I, too, enjoy my life for how it is now. Sure, I hope that my afterlife will be a good one, but it's not my main concern. The idea of their being nothing after death is unfathomable to me as well. Even from a parapsychological perspective, I've always believed in the spiritual realm. I'm sure you're quite right about my analisys of the song. But I couldn't help but draw these conclusions when I listened to the lyrics more closely.
ShatteredSanity, perhaps, the reason why I came to these conclusions was the ideas of globalisation and complete secularisation, both of which seem to be quite prevalent o=today. It's a disturbing trend that I can't help but notice, and this song seems to embody these ideas, whether it was meant to do so or not. Uniting and getting along is wonderful. But this way of doing it, in my opinion, comes at a terrible cost, one which I hope not to see in my lifetime. No, religion is not a necessity, even if I personally can't imagine my life without it. But as this song does for you, many are uplifted and given hope by believing in something outside themselves and the natural world around them. So it does have its' place. I also agree that, on the surface, no possessions sounds like a great thing. There are even societies, like the Bushmen, where there there is no concept of personal ownership. But it smacks of Communism to me, or at least, as you admitted, of an unattainable eutopia. The idea of omnipotence didn't even cross my mind. I'm sure there are interviews where Lennon explains his beliefs on these things, as he was very vocal. His voice, to me at least, was decent. Not great but not horrible either. Yoko couldn't hold a tune if her life depended on it! Even if she sang a patriotic song, I'd turn it off! *smile*
Well, if you want to hear a song with lyrics you should be concerned about, try this on for size.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd4kIvqGNek
that's a song to be concerned about, for sure, shattered sanity. very different from "imagine" where, as others have said here, Lennon's meaning was likely to encourage people to appreciate life as it is in the here and now.
Trust me, I have more where that came from. I pride myself on knowing a lot of songs that never were, shall we say, radio friendly.
I think that's great; I can't stand how radio censors stuff, anyway.
John was not a happy man. Lost his mother young and had relationship problems. I read most of the books written about him. I'm no expert but all he really wanted was to see the world as a peaceful loving place. All you need is love was the message he put out before the song imagine. Give peace a chance was another song he put out before imagine. He wasn't the nicest person as I read, but he had some genius within.
I would sincerely hope that this song is some kind of hill billy novelty. Then again, that's how some people were back then. You must take the time into account here. While my usual English music tastes are 50s through 70s, I also like music from around 1925 and below, and some of that is a bit crazy. But nothing beats the blues! Good Gods, some of those lyrics are even a bit much for today! I don't know much about them, but I once read an article, on Cracked.com, which had some of the most violent and sexually explicit lyrics I've ever seen!
You're right about that. I could certainly post some of those songs here too, I know a bunch of them. As for that particular song being a novelty, well, maybe it was, but I really don't find it funny.
I think that's because you and I come from a completely different culture, with different morals and values. We would never think of something like that.
The thing you ahve to remember about Yoko is that I don't think, and I'm really kind of guessing here, but I don't think she primarily thought of herself as a typical pop or rock singer. At least in her early days she was more interested in making more experimental sorts of music, so it's not fair to try and apply her style to the same standards you['d use to judge somebody you hear on the radio. It's experimental so it's going to not always please the ear. It will be dissonant and nonsensical and just unconventional and that's how that kind of thing works.
Yes, but I listen to psychedelic and experimental music, and her voice just makes my skin crawl. Sorry, there's no defense for that singing, lol.
I'll take early early Pink Floyd over anything Beatles, any day.
I think John just wanted to get the message across give peace a chance and all you need is love. Those songs came out before imagine. I read books about him. He was not the nicest person and lost his parents when he was young. I think yoko messed him up too, but that's just my thought. Sorry if this is a repeat post. I didn't find my first one in this thread. I always have said John had genius within, but in the 1960's with his lyrics, he was before his time.
Impricator, I always find it interesting when I come across Beatles haters, or Elvis haters too, for that matter. Is it because just about everyone loved them, so you just don't see what all the fuss is about? And I agree, early Pink Floyd is the best. They were completely hit or miss after that. Even the Wall album, which most people drool over, only has about 3 songs I can listen to.
I'm not a Beatles or Elvis fan either.
As to that extra video / country hillbilly song: One of you said perhaps that was in gest?
Take this in gest if one wants:
anybody who struck my daughter like that could count on this: their life would be short and their death slow. Perhaps that is also "funny?" Considering heretofore I have not made threats on this site.
That vid is a far different scenario than the drivel in Imagine, which frankly bores me most times.
This country hillbilly drivel is the same to me as the rap that denigrates women. Just because they're from the country and think they're entitled or feel like us city folk should feel sorry for (and usually pay for) them, to me ssongs like that are no different than the ghetto garbage which talks of selling women on the street. Unlike the original poster, I would not ban a track for any reason, but fair is fair: the rest of us may well respond in kind. Imagine is yawn drivel mainly, and the other vid is straight up white trash where you would never want your daughter anywhere near them without a weapon.
I completely agree that no one would want their daughter near people like that. But it does come from a different time, when people weren't politically correct. That said, I couldn't support a song like that today. There's no excuse for it.
Thank you, Leo. I, too, have no idea how anyone, whether they were from that time period or not, could find this remotely funny. The reason I posted the song in the first place is that it strikes me how someone can think of a song like Imagine as ominous, while other songs like the one I posted flew completely under the radar and didn't even cause a stir, let alone an uproar. I only brought it to light because, frankly, it's stuff like that we should be focusing on if we want to talk about music history, not songs like Imagine whose message may or may not have been destructive. I'm seriously leaning towards the fact that it wasn't meant that way at all. Someone said that Give peace a Chance came before Imagine, which is true. I hadn't thought of that.
I don't understand how anyone could find that funny, either.
Well, from a fan of Most of the Floyd's stuff, remember that "The Wall" was not just a collection of isolated songs, it is a concept album, so good song or bad or indifferent all the songs played in order tell a story.
As for that Slap Her Down song, I didn't hear this recording but an Arthur Godfrey one and I still wasn't sure how it was funny, although I'm sure it was lampooning the ways of hillbillies. It wasn't instructing civilized city folks to act that way.
Oh, and disliking the Beatles or Elvis. That goes back to my subject of the guilty displeasure. Elvis is OK and I do enjoy the Beatles, but I think my thing was Prince and Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston and Lionel Richie and Huey Lewis and the News. No, it wasn't about their fame or that other people liked them, I think part of it was just being overexposed to music that to my ears really was quite dull and ordinary and not the extraordinary thing most everybody else seemed to think it was.
I like The Wall. The Final Cut was a piece of crap though.
Sanity, that song was all sorts of special, and not in a "you're so special way, more like a low-class three-day-old airline meal way). I guess music can be used to illicit all manner of responses. Perhaps that is why it is a universal language.
I'm not at all a beatles fan either, but that's mainly because of the sound of their music. it's just not for me.
For anyone who's having doubts as to whether or not the song I posted was meant to be humorous or not, I've got another one for you, and while it may seem tame by comparison, it's still pretty bad. This one, I'm sure, was 100% serious. I believe the Slap Her Down Again one is too, but here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBiNYUS9enM
Blind Guardian, I know how you feel. I can respect the fact that certain people just aren't into insert genre here. I've just heard people talk about the Beatles as if they ruined music, which I don't think is at all true. But I can definitely respect the fact that you just don't care for them.
Actually, that's another Lennon song, from Rubber Soul. I have the album on cassette, so knew it from there, but wanted to see if it was older/by another artist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_for_Your_Life
Nope. It was written mostly by Lennon himself. To be fair, though, he never really liked it and regreted writing it. I think this is far more sinister and serious than Slap Her Down, not tamer. In that one, the woman was getting smacked. In this one, she's being threatened with death!
That Drive My Car song on Rubber Soul always gave me the creeps. Something about the dissonant vocals in the chorus. And Do You Want to Know a Secret was just weird.
I can't say I follow you on Do You Want to Know a Secret. It's a song where a guy is talking to a girl about a crush that he has on her, but he hasn't told anyone else about it yet. What's so weird about that?
How about Blue Jay Way? Now that's a creepy song! As for other groups, what about Boris the Spider, by The Who?
I Am the Walrus is way creepier than Blue Jay Way. And the Who song that really makes my skin crawl is Cousin Kevin. Talk about a song with sickening lyrics. Another truly weird song I can think of is End of the Night, by The Doors.
Wow! What a horrible song! Then again, that was a weird album/film/concept anyway. But it had a few interesting songs.
I have heard people from my generation who either implied or said that the Beatles and also Bob Dylan ruined music. But then again, there are people in the world who view ruin and change as the same bad thing. I wonder what music would have been like if the Beatles and Dylan did not exist, or if there was no Summer of Love, or if JFK had not been shot.
Some of those Beatles songs you guys mentioned are the Beatles trying to be psychedelic. And honestly, with enough imagination and time on your hands, you can extract sinister things from just about any song that exists and act as if its the worst tragedy in the world. Here's one for you of much more recent vintage and I'll just mention the song by title. "How can I breathe without you." What? OK, lady, I know you're trying to sound romantic and poetic but how can you breathe without that somebody else? That's a might bit codependent, isn't it?
It's not the words. It's the gloomy chord progressions.
And, Boris the Spider makes me laugh. I can See for Miles is the freaky song.
I don't think the Beatles ruined music. I do however think rap music did ... But I'm super unpopular on that view.
Godzilla, look up 80s hits on Youtube, and you will see people in the comments who sound like our parents' generation did about 50s music: they'll herald the 80s like it was a golden age. I think it's just a human habit. Every age is its own golden age after enough time and enough selective memory.
Never cared for Elvis at all, just never saw it. The Beatles that I did like was the strange acid stuff mainly. Certainly The Walrus was way up there. Same with Pink Floyd.
And I actually did like the Wall, but I always listened to it the way you would a symphony or a sonata, all the way through, rather than just one song at a time. Same went for their Animals and Dark Side Of The Moon albums, though.
There's a lot of rock albums that are theme albums when you come down to it, though. One aspect of buying things one song at a time, is you can miss the whole album design: I'm not talking about the photo art, especially on this site, but the whole design of what songs to put where and when. The whole theme of an album, which for those of us who grew up on classical music is more of a normal concept perhaps than for those for whom a theme of a group of works is a novelty.
When I finally started getting into music when I was about twelve or so, I would always buy albums on LP or cassette, I very rarely bought singles. Another band famous for their concept albums would be the Moody Blues, at least for that classic set of seven albums they did. But yeah, the best way to appreciate an album like Dark Side of the Moon is to take it as an entire work, from start to finish, and it seems Pink Floyd did that at least up until the Final Cut, which I didn't care for either, I don't think most people cared much for it.
Eighties music? Oh, I see your point. A lot of the people I know on Twitter seem to be younger than me so they're all into the very standard Eighties pop and rock stuff which I just never took a shine too. At that point I started buying Beatles and Pink Floyd albums and other stuff because what I heard on the radio just wasn't doing anything for me.
As for rap, I just never got into it or whatever cultural stuff went along with it, I never thought, yeah, this is my music. The stuff I've been talking about in the above paragraphs, that old hippie rock and roll, even though I was a couple decades too late, I felt that was more my music than anything any rapper did. Even these days, now that rap is mainstream, I still look at it as other people's music, music of an alien culture. Yeah and then I go listen to some old roots reggae recorded in 1972 or so, and that stuff comes from an even more alien culture, and yet I think it's such cool music. Figgers, don't it?
If only the original mix of Days of Future Passed was available on CD.
Oh I know, right? I do have an MP3 rip of a very clean vinyl copy of the original mix. The reason why that doesn't exist is that tape probably just deteriorated over time.
Hook me up?
The most I could tolerate in rap is Sugar Hill Gang, which were actually cool. I also can't stand heavy metal, especially the screaming kind, where I can't understand a word that's being said. I was born in 1983, and have loved music ever since I can remember. My English music tastes are pretty much 50s through 70s, but especially 60s. I like a few 80s songs, and even fewer songs from the 90s and beyond. But I don't know how they can call most of the stuff on the radio today music. It's a bunch of synthesized crap!
Elvis is okay, but I never saw the big deal with him. I like psychedelic, but mostly the pop kind, like Pictures of Matchstick Men, incence and Peppermints, Sunshine Superman, etc. And I absolutely adore Cream! I'm not into experimental stuff or prog rock at all.
I don't know too many albums with themes, but classical music is rarely, if ever, heard in my home. Give me a good taxim on the bouzouki, especially if it's real rebetika, and I'll be in heaven! Even some dimotika with clarinet will make me happy, especially if it's a tsamiko!
I really should get Days of Future Passed from Ebay. I like several songs on there. If they have the vinyl, why not just make a cd from that? Goodness knows they made cds from the original 78s of rebetika. It can't be that difficult to do with lps.
I have days of future past on CD. I think it's very nice. Though I've noticed it's not easy to find certain kinds of music, but that's another topic, smiles.
Oh serious 80s metalhead here among other things. Nothing better to work out to.
What I find now about 80s pop is that while I didn't like it growing up, I listen to it now more of a memory lane thing, sort of like much of it was the sound track of the 80s so it has become more interesting with time and distance. I have not bought any of it though, and it's only a rare thing but still.
Tiff, you might want to see about getting a good vinyl copy of Days of Future passed if you've got a decent turntable. The album integrates classical and rock music, and really, the Moody Blues style is not as complex or as hard as some of the other progressive bands out there. But again, the whole album tells a story so you have to take it as a whole. I do like a lot of the pop psyche songs you mentioned, and Cream is cool partly because I like Eric Clapton's guitar playing. And, I may have not gotten into Eighties pop, but I love pop music especially from about 1964 through about 1971. British invasion, girl groups, Motown, folk rock, instrumentals, all the different styles, it was all great stuff to me.
I'm thinking of getting Days of Future Past on vinyl myself. First, I need to get a better turntable. Mine is, quite frankly, a piece of crap. I do have the album on my computer, but if you've read my topic about vinyl, you know how I feel about it in general.
Godzilla, now you're talking my kind of music! I adore vinyl, and have well over 100 records. I also have about four turntables, two on stereos and two separate. But said stereos aren't hooked up/nearby, one of the solo turntables needs to be hooked into a stereo, and I have no idea where the one with built-in speakers is. Plus, it may need a needle and is always a bit too high pitch, with no way to change that. So I'm definitely looking at getting a new/old record player, preferably a four-speed, which I don't have. I actually have a tape of the Moody Blues greatest hits, and like their early stuff.
Tell me about it. That's my main gripe with my turntable, that it plays at too high a pitch, and there's nothing I can do about it. That's why I want a belt-driven turntable, as opposed to a direct drive, because as far as I know, you can't adjust the speed of direct drive turntables. My other serious gripe about my current setup is that it has some kind of problem in the wiring. I've hooked better speakers to it, but you have to jiggle the on/off switch around a lot to make both of them work. I do have my eye on a couple of different ones that I want to buy, and it's only a matter of picking which one I want. I, too, would love to have a four speed turntable, but considering the fact I don't currently own any 78's, and certainly have never seen a 16 RPM record, nor do I see the benefit of having them since I know they were used for audiobooks, which I don't use anyway since I much prefer Braille, I'll settle for just 3 speeds, since I do plan on buying some 78's as soon as I can get my hands on them.
I want to weigh in on another thing. Now Tiff, you indicated that you thought today's music or at least most of it was unlistenable crap. Consider that music, at least that which is meant for mass consumption and getting airplay on radio and TV is primarily supposed to be a product and any semblence of art is either taking a back seat or doesn't exist. Consider that if music is a product, it's marketted towards certain types of people according to gender or age or whatever, demographics and all that. If you want music that is more art than product, go listen to non-commercial radio which plays mostly independent music, which can be more adventurous, else go find some adventurous internet streams. Mind you that there are many internet streams that will gladly want to replicate the commercial radio experience, even if they are not commercial themselves.
I wonder, and this is crackpot theory time, but I'm wondering if over the years those who produce and market music have been using more scientific methods to determine what sorts of music will appeal to the most people at once, what will serve the lowest common denominator. So perhaps they analyzed lyrical content, the particular sorts of rhythms and chords used, and other musical elements to figure what is going to be a hit the quickest and what is going to make everybody go on iTunes and buy that song. I think what your average person wants anymore is music with a very strong, heavy, and danceable beat and lyrics that are easy to sing along with and memorize. They also want music that they can put on while doing other things.
I think you're onto something there. I'll add that there are also plenty of blogs that have independent music which is legal to download, if you want to go that route. Most of my music collection consists of stuff you'll never hear on the radio. In fact, after discovering such a wealth of music on blogs, I have no desire to listen to the radio anymore. If someone else happens to have it on, that's fine, but I honestly never turn mine on for the simple fact that I don't really want to hear the same song 5 times in an hour. Not all stations do that, and if I do listen to the radio, I usually go to either a classic rock or oldies station, and they're not bad with that.
I also oppose the message of Imagine, which is basically a song advocating Communism.
I believe Heaven is what we should all be aiming for. If everybody aimed for Heaven by letting God’s light shine brightly in them and everything they do, we could create Heaven on Earth. The third line could be realised if we didn’t go along with the first.
I don’t share Tiffanitsa’s interpretation of the next bit about everybody “living for today”, but I still think that would be a bad thing. We should be looking beyond today, to tomorrow and making sure the next day and every day is a good day.
In getting us to imagine no countries and no religion, the next verse is essentially asking “wouldn’t it be better if we were all the same?” No it wouldn’t; it would be boring. Our differences create challenges for us to overcome, such as how we treat each other and how we accommodate each other. As for “nothing to kill or die for”, either this is about people killing each other, or about killing in general. If it is the former, it is possible for people to follow different religions and be divided into countries without that leading to war. If it is the latter, eating animals is natural. They should be killed humanely. Vegetarianism and veganism should be banned. I’m not against everybody living in peace. I believe we should aim for a peaceful world, but be prepared to fight wars if it is necessary to do so.
As for the final verse, greed isn’t a need; it is a problem caused by people being selfish and bad. Hunger is caused by irresponsible governments of poor countries, which don’t implement legislation to protect their citizens from exploitation, don’t set up trade networks with each other so they don’t need to depend on international aid, etc.
I've read a few other posts and there is another issue in this thread for me to address, and that's ShatteredSanity's apparent pride in knowing of songs that contain lyrics that are not "radio friendly". What is so great about the lyrics of those songs? What is so great about offending people and saying things purely for the sake of being edgy/pushing the boundaries?
Why shouldn't the feelings of people who don't want to be offended not be taken into consideration by music-playing radio stations? What is to be gained by being so inconsiderate? What is to be gained by filling songs with swear words, violence, etc? What would a society in which everybody lived by the attitudes advocated in those songs be like? Why would anybody want to live in such a society?
Wow, you completely misinterpreted what I said. If you listened to the songs I posted, you would see that I did not post them for the sake of stirring up controversy. What a narrow-minded way to look at it, though. But, if you really want me to spell it out for you, I guess I can do that. The purpose of this topic was to address Tiffanitsa's apparent distaste with lyrics that aren't really that offensive. By posting overlooked songs from the same time period, and in the case of the former, even earlier than that, whose lyrics were much more shocking, I was trying to explain that even though there were a lot of people who hated John Lennon, there were obviously other songs that should be getting criticized before this one. But, if it makes you feel good to think that I get off on shock value, it doesn't bother me.
Not by any means, the easily offended are catered to and sucked up to much too much already. The solution? Stop getting so offended at everything, it does you no good far as I can tell unless I'm missing something, and it does no good for society as a whole. I'm sure, in fact, there are many people who exagerate or make up feelings of offence because they know their feelings wield much much power and they can manipulate whole masses of people to pay attention to them and to otherwise serve them. This must end!
You have the right not to get offended too, you know.
Senior, I agree with your point about the world being a very boring place if everything was completely peaceful and everyone lived together as one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that because of human nature, that sort of society might be even more likely to spark a war. However, so many people seem to view communism is some evil, devilish idea that should be obliterated from the face of the planet, and I can't understand that. On the surface, there's nothing wrong with wishing for peace, and for more happiness, and to rid the world of the beliefs of killing to protect one's religion. Granted, it's the people; not the beliefs, that kill. it's one of those things that sounds great in theory, but would probably never work in practice. Honestly, though, I don't see that the existence of communism, at least as an idea, is any worse than the existence of religion.
Hmmm so do you think that there is a part of us deep down that stirrs shit up because we are bored with the idea of calm in our lives?
Senior, I agree with a lot of what you said. Since I'm not Christian, I don't believe in Hell, or in the light of God, though I do believe in Tartaros, and I do think that religion, in general, is a good thing. You made a good point about making today and every day good. Of course, that doesn't always happen. But if we think even just a bit ahead of the present, we can make things easier for ourselves. I agree that eliminating religion won't stop war, and that different faiths can exist without the need for fighting. I don't think that veganism or vegetarianism should be banned, particularly for people who must follow those diets for medical reasons, though I myself would never wish to do so.
I'm so glad that you agree with me about irresponsible governments not helping their people! This is one of the issues that I discussed in both my General Political Views and Views on Rights essays. I actually consider food to be a natural right, meaning that it's one of those which should exist in all civilised societies. I loved your quote about creating legisation to prevent exploitation and international aid! If a country cannot provide the basics of food, shelter, and clothing domestically, it's in a horrible situation and is on its' way to destruction! Granted, there are a few exceptions to this rule, such as countries with poor soil, where food must be imported. But if the soil is good, and if animals can live there, then there's no excuse for all the foreign imports.
I disagree with you about ShatteredSanity. While I don't understand the need to push boundaries and be edgy just for the hell of it, I don't think that she brought those songs up to cause trouble, nor did she wish to offend anyone. She just wanted to make a point that there are songs out there which are more in need of criticism than Imagine. I do agree, however, that there's far too much political correctness in the air today.
As for Communism, I don't think it's evil in itself. I just think it's foolish and extremely unrealistic, and can be used for evil purposes by those in power. margorp, that was actually a very philosophical question. I do think that there are times when, consciously or not, people bring things up just to get a reaction. They need not be hurtful, but they can be controversial. I posted these topics, for example, to see what people thought of them, and because I enjoy debating. So yes, I do see validity in that argument.
Uh. To sort of get this topic back on track: I haven't turned on a radio in years, but I've heard about stuff like Madonna being played on oldies stations these days. That's fucking frightening. I mostly listen to stations hosted by shoutcast.
Actually, we were on topic this time. *smile*
Actually, now that I think about it, I think the post that Senior took issue with was probably the one in which I said my music collection expands far beyond what's played on the radio. To which I say, why shouldn't it? If I had to limit myself to the top 40, I would go crazy. I think that most people could say the same thing, except for a select few who are following a trend and think it's cool to listen to only what their friends are listening to. But my preferences do not, and should not, reflect the fact that I'm some kind of rebel. If there's a song that someone tells me they heard on the radio, and they tell me I would like it, I listen to it, then decide whether I like it or not. However, as I said, I feel no need to listen to a radio station, getting bogged down by an overabundance of commercials and hearing the same song 5 times in an hour. Plus, some deejays are downright obnoxious. The only exceptions to my general avoidance of the radio are internet things, like Shoutcast or Pandora, but in my mind those don't count as true radio, because not only are they commercial free, but they're not following a strict format. I like the fact that anyone could set up a Shoutcast station, irregardless of what genre they feel like playing. They could play a mix of genres and get away with it. There's an audience for everything on the internet, and it's not restricted by what's in or hot or what everyone supposedly wants to hear.
I hope that I've done a better job explaining myself now than I did with my initial knee-jerk reaction. As I said on another topic, I tend to get a bit sensitive when people criticize my music preferences. There's a story behind that, but I don't feel like going into it at the moment.
Not only did you make yourself perfectly clear, but you also made some very valid points. For the past several years, I've basically been listening to Greek music. But even when I listen to English stuff, I don't usually turn on the radio. I love the oldies, but most stations which play them are just as guilty of playing the same songs over and over again as the ones which play the top 40. I could understand the latter, as they're trying to promote singers. But in the oldies category, there are so many amazing songs out there, even if they were limited to mainstream genres! Why must they constantly play the same music? Also, like you, I don't listen to nonmainstream music to be a rebel. I do so because I like it.
Yes, I didn't realize people listened to nonmainstream to be rebelious. I do it because I like listening to it.
Yes, I have to say that listening to nonmainstream music makes me a rebel is one criticism I haven't heard before. It's definitely a new one on me. Considering I have nearly 2 terrabytes of music on an external hard drive, and plenty of vinyl records, I'd say my music collection is pretty far beyond the scope of "radio-friendly."
Let's face it, the radio just plays the same shit day in and day out.
Yes, and that's probably because they think the more times they play something, the stronger the power of suggestion is. More money for the record companies as people go flocking to the stores to buy CD's, which they want to throw out a window a few months later because they're sick of the same shit that they've been listening to for months. I've always wondered why radio deejays don't kill themselves, honestly. I cannot even begin to imagine how someone could stand that job.
I just listen to what I do because I find it interesting in one way or the next. I don't really bother myself very much about the impression it makes on others, because I'm not listening to music to please other people. Lately I've been playing with some apps on my iPod Touch like Jango Mobile and Pandora Radio and I can hear whatever I want, when internet radio stations claim they play what I want to hear. No, they can't, they probably don't have what I want to hear, so there. A lot of time, though, I don't even listen to music or read, as I have a DVD collection.