For new members...

[oldblue]

or else what?

The sense of disillusionment many young people felt during this time (late 50s and early 60s) and their quest for something other than what society was offering them also became the subjects of a number of songs.

Darby Slick of the Great Society traced the genesis of his song “Somebody to Love” to these feelings, saying, “It’s sort of a searcher’s song. The verses are disillusionment, and the chorus is looking for an answer. That feeling was a lot more common in those days than the media seemed to realize. The scene was about trying to throw off the Fifties. People forget how depressing and repressed it was, how negative it made us feel about society.” (Albums 107)

When the truth is found
To be lies
And all the joy
Within you dies
Don’t you want somebody to love

On a more mundane level, Slick recalled the genesis of the song in the experience of coming down from a relationship and an LSD trip. “I’d just been dumped by this girl, and I was coming down from LSD in my house on Liberty St. in the Mission. I wrote it at dawn. It came quickly,” he remembered. (Anthony 42)

[redrabid]

Whaw, you really like to do that, don't you Okeedoe? Playfully insulting people (in casu me) to provoke them. (Don't feel ashamed, I like your posts) But I'm too shallow to notice, so no irate tantrums from me. That's partly because I can't hate you all, as we all share the same (to others incomprehensible) infatuation with Jefferson Airplane. And I really like to know who these other freaks are. And for me that works best when people voice their differences. Did you notice how things get fired up on this forum when we disagree? How we write more about what is dear to our hearts? To me that is far more interesting and clarifying than a mutual admiration society. Heated discussions can be a sign of trust, of friendship even.
Tonight or tomorrow I shall explain to you and Susan and all others what I meant with "I do". I don't believe in marriage. I was never married and I never will be. But there is something in matrimonial vows that I find very interesting.

[okeedoe]

Well done,Red.A nice, florid and eloquent style for the summary.See how I gradually push out the best from you ?Yes, we learn from one another here.That's how I see it.I am glad you are here with us.So, cheerio 'till the next occasion,old boy.

ps
Tell us something funny sometime,will you ?

[Susan Butcher]

I'm glad you said that, RR. I didn't want this conversation to turn sour. Although I do like Jefferson Airplane, I'm mostly here because I like people who like them. And luckily there's not so many of us that our voices get lost in the noise!

[fairlane500]

The "or else" was meant to be taken in a humorous vein.

[usedtobebabson]

Nice Info on STL and Slick. I can see the song applied to lose of Love with a partner and an LSD buzz. Over the years, I 've found it applies equally well to a large government's trumpets of war (truth is found to be lies) and the resultant counter-culture (don't you want somebody to love). It was a perfect fit. It would Apply to the death of a loved one or lover. It would apply to soldiers (kids) dying in Vietnam, physically and emotionally. IMHO, STL will withstand the test of time, and be the classic it is for a very long time.

[redrabid]

Let me try to explain what I meant with "I do". I'm not sure I'm able to do it. I am rather distracted at the moment. A painting that I'm working on insistently asks for attention.
Reading your last week's posts again I noticed how easily "to love" and "to be in love" are used as if it were synonyms. There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction as in other languages, for instance German; "Liebe" and "Verliebtheit". But English doesn't seem to have a proper noun for that feeling of being in love. There is of course "love sickness" (too medical) or "infatuation" (not specific enough) and the almost unpronouncable "amorousness", given by my dictionary. (I understand why that isn't used) but there is no word like "in-loveness" or something. So our different views may have their roots in semantics. Because to me "love" and "being in love" are, though related, two very different things.
You have to wait a while, my painting cries out: "Here. right now!"
Now that the needs of my painting have been satisfied (It was a quicky), I'll continue. That idea, expressed by some of you of love as something that can't be helped, that love" slides down on you, like rain in bad weather" (thank you, Grace), now that is to me one of the main characteristics of "in-loveness". Also you see the person of your desire (being in love has probably more to do with lust than with love) with rose coloured glasses, you don't have a realistic picture of that person, much to the amusement or bewilderment of your friends. But for love you have to know the other well, at least you must be willing to get to know the person involved. Being in love you don't care, you already know, you're convinced the other is the person of your dreams, you've always known her/him.
"Come here"!
"Can't it wait?"
"No, now."
"Please, let me finish this post."
"No!"
"Okay, okay."
To be continued.

[Susan Butcher]

These two varieties of love aren't completely separate. With the passage of time one can become the other without the change being suddenly obvious. Which makes me think that there's something essentially the same about both. That is, "in-love-ness" is "seed" of mature love.

[redrabid]

"I do" Part two.
My painting was told to stand in the corner, face to the wall, so it won't bother me for a while.
I agree with you, Susan, but that transformation of "in-love-ness" into love doesn't happen by itself. As we all know, quite often it doesn't happen at all. Those feelings of being in love are only temporary, they die quickly or they slowly fade within a few years, those rose coloured glasses fall off and then one morning you wake up with a stranger next to you in bed. But, if you're lucky, it is a nice person, interesting enough to get to know better. Those seeds of "in-love-ness" need attention to flower into love. Dedication and a willingness to share the ups and downs of life (my views are not much different from those expressed by Okeedoe). But that commitment is a choice, it is hard work. My view is that love is a consequence of that choice, not the other way around. That's what I like about that "I do"-part of matrimonial vows, it seems to acknowledge that. A realistic idea in an otherwise sentimental and to me ridiculous ritual.
To conclude this post, some useless but in this context interesting information. Years back I read an newspaper article about a survey on marriages in a country in Western Europe compared with those in Egypt. We are supposed to marry out of love, in Egypt they have marriages arranged by the families. The partners hardly know each other. They marry a stranger. At first sight the results of that survey were very surprising. The percentage of happy marriages was the same in both countries, about 25 percent. Of course after the feelings of being in love have gone, we end up with a stranger too! Then in both countries one has a choice: Do I go for it or not. "I do"!

[usedtobebabson]

Good angle on your thinking redra. I always took the "I do" part to mean that you both decided not to succumb to love with other people anymore. And yes after 1 to 3 years of spooning, the thrill seems to depart in favor of a good night's sleep As far as that person being a "stranger", methinks that is taking it to extremes. It may be harder to recognize the gleem in her eyes, but it is still there and will be there from time to time. I look at it as I would the tide. There is an ebb and flow of love. When love is in for both things are good. When love is only in for one and out for the other, That's when the former can be burned, and the now intermittent love can end.

[Susan Butcher]

I see what you're getting at, RR. But if there's love, then the commitment isn't "hard work". It's just something you want to do out of love, even though it may be difficult sometimes.

[EmbryonicRabbit68]

That's correct, if you truly love, or are in love with someone, then any amount of hard work, or work that you'd normally not do, isn't hard at all, nor is it work, it's something highly enjoyable. It still remains a need, but a need for both the person you love and yourself, because if you're truly in love, your joy comes from the other's joy, so you'll do anything to put a smile on their face. Without the feeling you've accomplished that, you can feel empty and without purpose.

And seeing that there's over six billion people on this planet, not everyone is going to find the person that they see completely perfect in every way, including their flaws, but that doesn't mean that person isn't out there. If you're lucky enough and open, you can find that person.

[Susan Butcher]

You wouldn't have to see the person as "completely perfect". You can love someone and just overlook the flaws, you know. They might snore, lose their temper, put on weight, and spend too much time in the shed, but it wouldn't matter.

[EmbryonicRabbit68]

True... I don't consider those types of things necessarily imperfections though. To me perfect is usually quite non-perfect or weird. Yeah, I may throw words around... But, I love what I love and I want it that way.

[redrabid]

Be careful, ER68, it's a very dangerous and destructive myth that there is one person walking around somewhere, who is specially meant for you, who suits you "perfectly".
See it from the bright side. There are a lot more people out there that may give you a chance on a good relationship.