Labels like "protest singer" are just marketing tools for record companies. Music and art are meant to be experienced, not categorized. I understand your point about that "rebellious feeling"...that it’s an emotional substitute that often stands in for actual rebellion. Today, however, that feeling has mostly been replaced by a pervasive vapidness.But it wasn’t just that the 60s generation fell for a bait-and-switch. Many were genuinely turning away from the machine to experiment with new ways of living.
The Western Left often argues that those who went back to the land were "copping out" and handing a gift to the rulers by abandoning the fight in the streets. I’d argue the opposite: the system handles street fighting far better than it handles people who throw away their TVs, stop buying commodities, and quit the 9-to-5 grind to wean themselves off the corporate teat.
Unfortunately, those in power play a long game. All the system had to do was wait for the next generation while continuing to enclose the commons. By the 70s, the "iron fist" arrived with the most rapid buildup of the prison system in American history. Radicals who weren't killed were caged, as were the back-to-the-landers busted by CAMP for growing the very plants they used to fund their independence.
Yes, I’m aware that I’ve indulged in a crass simplification although, since I tend to talk about propaganda and media spin, this is inevitable. The media try hard to diffuse any dissident movement. And I think that the 60s represented a time of experimentation in which nothing was assured and the rulers were trying to “keep the lid on it” as much as possible.
But the true history of any movement is always much more complex than what is presented. The whole rock & roll thing was a commercial proposition from the start – but then again under capitalism this too is inevitable.
And when writing these pieces, I invariably find I can go in different directions and I don’t know where to draw the lines. Dave McGowan’s investigations into manufacturing artificial protest are fascinating. I was going to include a bit about Phil Ochs who is a curious case. Much more political than Dylan (he even had Maoist quotes on one of his albums), he seems to have suffered a mental breakdown at the end in which he became a split personality with a Right Wing alter-ego. Quite possibly a case of mind control.
I also acknowledge that many of the hippie generation were genuine dissidents and still are. You always have to bear in mind the thorny issue of WHAT can be done at any particular time.
Oh, and I just found out that I myself count as a “baby boomer” since the cut off point is apparently 1964. Dylan actually isn’t. He was born in ’41 which apparently makes him one of The Silent Generation. But then again that too is all media talk. This naming of generations started I think with the 60s.
The naming of generations, grouping people into marketing silos with defining characteristics. Phil Ochs is an interesting character, he was an actual radical and his fears were likely justified.
I sometimes have pieces of writing that I reject when developing a post and one of the “outtakes” from the above post was to do with the unavoidable fact that every period of history has to be viewed through a lens which of course the rulers try to control. Here’s what I wrote (and note that I presuppose that we can work towards a definitive account):
The 60s, like so many other periods, awaits a genuinely truthful appraisal – which, to be brutally honest, is unlikely to come anytime soon. Naturally the mainstream media has conjured up its usual cartoon vision of the time in which fashion is all. It was hippies and “love-ins” and psychedelic grooves. I recall a later comment about “all that ugly protest”. Note how it’s the protest that’s ugly and not what the protest is protesting against. And I daresay the commenter didn’t have a clue what the protest was about. Which is a tribute to the media’s mass mind management.
On the topic of “fashion being all”:
I recall that the George Michael video accompanying his song “Faith” was described as being the ultimate embodiment of the 80s. Since all I remember of the video is that it has him prancing around with a totally white background, I was puzzled by this. And then someone explained that the 80s quality of the video was entirely dependent on the gear he was wearing. And so, this is how epochs are to be judged now. Although the fact that there is nothing else in the video but him does make it a good tribute to 80s solipsism.
Labels like "protest singer" are just marketing tools for record companies. Music and art are meant to be experienced, not categorized. I understand your point about that "rebellious feeling"...that it’s an emotional substitute that often stands in for actual rebellion. Today, however, that feeling has mostly been replaced by a pervasive vapidness.But it wasn’t just that the 60s generation fell for a bait-and-switch. Many were genuinely turning away from the machine to experiment with new ways of living.
The Western Left often argues that those who went back to the land were "copping out" and handing a gift to the rulers by abandoning the fight in the streets. I’d argue the opposite: the system handles street fighting far better than it handles people who throw away their TVs, stop buying commodities, and quit the 9-to-5 grind to wean themselves off the corporate teat.
Unfortunately, those in power play a long game. All the system had to do was wait for the next generation while continuing to enclose the commons. By the 70s, the "iron fist" arrived with the most rapid buildup of the prison system in American history. Radicals who weren't killed were caged, as were the back-to-the-landers busted by CAMP for growing the very plants they used to fund their independence.
Yes, I’m aware that I’ve indulged in a crass simplification although, since I tend to talk about propaganda and media spin, this is inevitable. The media try hard to diffuse any dissident movement. And I think that the 60s represented a time of experimentation in which nothing was assured and the rulers were trying to “keep the lid on it” as much as possible.
But the true history of any movement is always much more complex than what is presented. The whole rock & roll thing was a commercial proposition from the start – but then again under capitalism this too is inevitable.
And when writing these pieces, I invariably find I can go in different directions and I don’t know where to draw the lines. Dave McGowan’s investigations into manufacturing artificial protest are fascinating. I was going to include a bit about Phil Ochs who is a curious case. Much more political than Dylan (he even had Maoist quotes on one of his albums), he seems to have suffered a mental breakdown at the end in which he became a split personality with a Right Wing alter-ego. Quite possibly a case of mind control.
I also acknowledge that many of the hippie generation were genuine dissidents and still are. You always have to bear in mind the thorny issue of WHAT can be done at any particular time.
Oh, and I just found out that I myself count as a “baby boomer” since the cut off point is apparently 1964. Dylan actually isn’t. He was born in ’41 which apparently makes him one of The Silent Generation. But then again that too is all media talk. This naming of generations started I think with the 60s.
The naming of generations, grouping people into marketing silos with defining characteristics. Phil Ochs is an interesting character, he was an actual radical and his fears were likely justified.
I sometimes have pieces of writing that I reject when developing a post and one of the “outtakes” from the above post was to do with the unavoidable fact that every period of history has to be viewed through a lens which of course the rulers try to control. Here’s what I wrote (and note that I presuppose that we can work towards a definitive account):
The 60s, like so many other periods, awaits a genuinely truthful appraisal – which, to be brutally honest, is unlikely to come anytime soon. Naturally the mainstream media has conjured up its usual cartoon vision of the time in which fashion is all. It was hippies and “love-ins” and psychedelic grooves. I recall a later comment about “all that ugly protest”. Note how it’s the protest that’s ugly and not what the protest is protesting against. And I daresay the commenter didn’t have a clue what the protest was about. Which is a tribute to the media’s mass mind management.
On the topic of “fashion being all”:
I recall that the George Michael video accompanying his song “Faith” was described as being the ultimate embodiment of the 80s. Since all I remember of the video is that it has him prancing around with a totally white background, I was puzzled by this. And then someone explained that the 80s quality of the video was entirely dependent on the gear he was wearing. And so, this is how epochs are to be judged now. Although the fact that there is nothing else in the video but him does make it a good tribute to 80s solipsism.