Hey Folks, Yeah You, You F*****s!

[plasticfantastic]

Yeah, I was lent both Liege and Lief and Unhalfbricking. I'll look for that other one, definitely. Thanks for the recs.

[SaturdayAfternoon]

Man plasticfantastic, did you pay alot for Cheap Thrills on Vinyl? I have never seen it in my local record stores.

I really like the few songs I have heard from Pearl. I can understand why 'they' talk so highly of Pearl, even though I have only heard about 3 songs from that record. You could hear Janis was really lovin' belting out her sound.

Peace.
SaturdayAfternoon.

[usedtobebabson]

Hey man,
Thanks for tuning in, it's really beautiful meeting you folks, you guys are pretty groovy people.

It's great you love Cheap Thrills usedtobebabson, I just love the album art, especially the cartoon of Janis, screaming into the microphone! I really dig Janis singing 'Piece of my Heart' at Woodstock, and of course 'Ball and Chain' at Monterey and it would be cool to hear some original stuff too. And it's Hell's Angels approved, what more could you ask for? (A Mercedes-Benz!)

Were you around for "the best time in the history of the world"?
Do you own Cheap Thrills on Vinyl?

Right now I'm listening to Jorma and Jack (or sometimes Janis) jamming to 'Hesitation Blues', Thanks for introducing me to this far out song plasticfantastic, it's blowin my mind!

I am proud to say I was around for the best time in history. I am 60 years old. I saw JA live once at Tanglewood Mass. 4 days before Woodstock, along with the Who and BB King. Snuck past all the security, and watched the show right under the stage from the press area. Saw Janis/with Big Brother twice in Mass., in '68, along with Hendrix, twice in Connecticut. I had Cheap Thrills on Vinyl, but got too scratchy and replaced it with a CD. Hesitation Blues is wonderful blues. My wife came home from a garage sale with Big Brother & the Holding Company - Mainstream, their first Album. Janis and PF really sound alike, especially in Janis's early years. Yeah Janis had a rep as a Hell's Angel's Mama. The San Francisco connection with the Hell's Angels was the downfall of Altemont.

[SaturdayAfternoon]

Oh man babson, I fucking love you!
You were so lucky to have so many beautiful experiences with some really far out bands. I would love to experience something like that, you know, sneaking into the press area to watch such groovy bands. Man, the thrills you get from rebellion! It's really groovy being able to talk to people who were actually around at the time. I can't talk to my parents about it, they were too young and besides, they arn't into the heavy bands of the 60's, they like 70's stuff.

It's really groovy you got Big Brother and the Holding Company's first record, it must be worth a bit now. Cheap Thrills on vinyl would have been cool too. As I said previously, I haven't seen any Janis Joplin or Big Brother records at my local record store. It is harder to find alot of psychedelic vinyl from America in Australia, well first pressings anyway, which is what I buy. I have alot of Beatles first pressings though.

Personally, I like the Hell's Angels, I like what they stand for, you know, rebelling against society, but I disagree with their violent ways toward "resolution". I think the theory behind Altamont was good, and it wasn't entirely the Angels fault when the violent outbreaks began, I guess it was fault on both parties, but no one deserved to get injured, man, ESPECIALLY Marty Balin, but I think it's far out he stood up to those guys. The violence really screwed up the driving force of what Altamont was supposed to be.

Peace.
SaturdayAfternoon.

[oldblue]

i doubt the marines who were at khe san look back on it as the best time in history.

as for admiring what the angels stood for, please. they were psychopaths.

[redrabid]

I'm with you on this, old blue.
I've done it before and I'll do it again. I'll fight this romantic view on the 60s anytime it raises its ugly head. To those who weren't there: For a good look into the past, wipe your glasses first.

[okeedoe]

Why do you have to fight someone else's romantic views at all?Sometimes it looks like you have got an obsessive–compulsive personality disorder because it isn't the first time you act in the similar manner.Do you accept only the facts ?As I remember,a while back there was a thread about romantic love that provoked your harsh reaction, too.What is it between you and romantic notions.

Let those kids fantasize,you rusty old wall painter.It enriches their minds.

[SaturdayAfternoon]

I was refering to "the best time in history" for the revolution in cultural minds of people who were involved in music, rather than people who were involved in Khe San. I was quoting babson, who was actually around in in the 60's. I am sure he was refering to "the best time in history" for music also.

And as for my "romantic" views, I understand how much of a fucker the war was, and how much shit everyone involved had to face. I still believe what I said about the Angel's, I know they do alot of violent shit which I don't agree with, but their rebellious morals appeal to me. But that's just me you know, I respect your opinions too, man. I'm not going to try to make you think differently just because I do.

[redrabid]

It was to be expected of course (and to be honest, I saw an opportunity to provoke you, Okeedoe), I got flogged again by my favorite web shrink. Crack that whip, master!
I have nothing against romanticism, as long as one is aware that it is a game, a dangerous one, because it distorts your view, it blocks understanding. Enjoy it while it lasts but don't act upon it.
As for facts:I was reading "The Inheritance of Rome" by Chris Wickam (highly recommanded for those interested in history), just before I opened this forum. In his chapter about the Carolingians, Wickam writes about Alcuin, the leading intellectual of the time, who wrote that literary education, knowledge, is essential to good behaviour (hmm) and spiritual understanding. "Knowing comes before doing", was about the last sentence I read. Nice coincidence.
To PF and SA: You say that you are interested in the 60s. Well, I take your word for it, but if you really want to know the time and place for a better understanding of your favorite music, I think you have to try harder.
As for the rebellious stance of the Hell's Angels. I believe they were not rebellious at all. They were in my view just the zenith of reigning American bourgeouis (maybe conservative is the better word) values. The Tea Party on motorbike.

[usedtobebabson]

Most of the Marines I knew would agree with me on those being the best times. Also all the sailors and air force guys I knew. That's what's nice about having been there. These guys can't distort the facts. Heed them on the Hell's Angels though. These were not your Flower Children. I knew an Outlaw well ( East Coast version of Hell's Angels). I was asked to join. I told them I wasn't into violence anymore, but thanks. They said that was OK, and if anybody stomped me they would bring me their teeth. They were even gonna give me a Chopper. Guy was in jail. I was in the military and it would only have been for a couple of weeks, but I went home to Mass., Instead. Smartest thing I ever did.

[okeedoe]

@ my buddy Red

You have got nothing against romanticism, as long as one is aware that it is a game.It is a nonsense.
How can you be aware that it is a game and still have distorted, romanticized view with blocked ability to comprehend the reality at the same time.What you talk about here is a simulation of the feeling.It is like ''let's fuck with no penetration''.That's a kid's game.A true romanticism is not a simulation.And why do you think one always must have a control over one's mind?Do you have to reason and rationalize everything,mr enlightement man?Romanticism emerged as a natural reaction to a dull social reality and restrictive ,limiting intelectual norms created by your likes. Are you afraid of something within you ? is there a wounded little suppressed romantic crying in your chests?
You don't have to worry about those kids.They behave usual for their age.
And you didn't provoke me .You can't provoke me for I am ''cold as a spritzer''.I was just walking by when I saw your crap on the wall.

(do me a favour and puncture me occasionally,will you? you're ok)

[redrabid]

Stop playing that game of accusing me to be in secret what I am against. I find your remarks about me and "those kids" rather condescending.
Why do you think that I don't value feelings, emotions, needs. They are very important in themselves and as motivations of our behaviour. But for knowing who we are we have to understand them. "I just felt it like that" can never be a defense of our behaviour and its consequences. As we all shall be held responsible for our deeds and sayings, we have to do some thinking. We can't shy away from that, it is our obligation. We have to make choices. And that is a tough job, so sometimes we tend to overvaluate our emotions, feelings. Feelings and thinking are two different things, but by nature not contrary to each other, they can work together very well in trying to gain understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Knowledge is important, feed your head! There is no excuse for ignorance. I consider knowledge, "enlightment", not restricting but liberating.
Satisfied, Okeedoe, that you got me "fired up" again?
Once, my partner read over my shoulder one of your posts and said to me: "This guy reminds me of a lapsed priest I knew. Are you sure he isn't a Jesuit?" Well I don't know, but the caricature fits.

[plasticfantastic]

To PF and SA: You say that you are interested in the 60s. Well, I take your word for it, but if you really want to know the time and place for a better understanding of your favorite music, I think you have to try harder.

Well, as for understanding, I do the best I can. It is impossible to understand a decade, and I know that. No one, even those who were there and looking back on it, can understand everything that happened. And no, I am certainly not saying that people who were there aren't of any authority on the subject, but only that no one is a true authority. It was a great time for some people, a terrible time for others, I know that too. I have done all that I can to understand (remember, I'm only fourteen and have been learning about the decade other than the music for only a few years now) and will continue to by reading. I regularly go through old newspaper archives, read biographies, autobiographies, and literature popular at the time, watch documentaries, and read interviews. I would say that that's trying pretty hard, especially for someone who is not truly obligated to do anything.

Even so, I do all of that knowing that every view I am exposed to will be slanted. Also knowing that no matter how I try, I was not there, and will not have been there no matter what. All I can do is educate myself, and I have made a point in doing so.

As for the rebellious stance of the Hell's Angels. I believe they were not rebellious at all. They were in my view just the zenith of reigning American bourgeouis (maybe conservative is the better word) values. The Tea Party on bike.

I agree. The Hell's Angels were an incredibly violent group, and I don't approve of what they did. Sure, maybe some of them got along well with the San Francisco crowd, but that doesn't make me approve of the things they did.

I think that what SaturdayAfternoon is saying (and do correct me if I'm wrong) is that they were true counterculture,-- again, sorry if I misinterpreted-- and I don't know enough about them to really judge that. What I do know are some of their actions, and I am completely against nearly all of them. I don't think that violence is necessary to be counterculture, although many countercultures are violent. The Weathermen are another one that is.

[okeedoe]

I believe you don't feel comfortable at the moment.I really wouldn't want you to get sick on my account.
Just let me know when you are ready to reveal to us that water is wet.

Your friendly Jesuit

Okee de Loyola

[EmbryonicRabbit68]

No decade is innocent, no decade is probably better than the other, but the 1960s had good music and the people seemed more passionate in changing things, at least more so than now, so what's the problem? It at least gives us hope living during a time that we wish we didn't.

Think about it this way, perhaps. You have ten decaying, nearly destroyed cars that are mostly junk and barely work, except one of them has a good working radio in it. Which car are you going to keep? The one that has the radio. They're all junk, but one has a radio at least!

And it's all the past anyway, a little romanticized view isn't going to change anything.