The Smiley Smile Message Board

I almost didn't post this here, and I may regret doing so, but this showed up in my feed.

http://www.popmatters.com/feature/racializing-rock-the-60s-and-the-white-sounds-of-pet-sounds/

Oh man...I may end up having to move this to the sandbox..bad feeling and instant  regret after reading this

Bad vibrations Billy. :-\

Yeah...

Must we?

Pet Sounds by those damn animals is now the better thread.  :thud

Agreed...I'm gonna move this to the Sandbox for reasons that will be very obvious for those who have read the article.

I think it's a legitimate topic and if people can be mature when discussing the topic (and the article, which is a whole other thing), it belongs in General On Topic Discussions.

I'm not done with it, but have a problem with this: "Pet Sounds is not a racist text, but its impact was racist because it further encoded rock as a white genre, perpetuating the institutionalized prejudice that relegated African Americans to the margins of rock." I understand the point, but reject it because it would then imply that no white rock band was allowed to make rock music (or they, too, would be encoding rock as a white genre, etc.).

There has been racism and obviously have been racial overtones in rock and roll, rock, pop, or whatever else you want to call it...just as everywhere else. The Beach Boys are credited with some racist statements here and there, especially through modern lenses. But they also idolized black musicians, invited black musicians into the band, etc. The article shades Brian's statement about wanting to make a "white spiritual sound," but I think that's also mistaken. I think it should be taken in almost the opposite way the article implies: I think Brian knew and loved spiritual music, including black spiritual music, but knew the Beach Boys weren't going to sound legitimate aping it. So he didn't really try. He did what he was good at.

Maybe another big problem is, rather than splitting the subgenres apart, we could just not do that. Then the early black influence on rock and roll doesn't disappear when rock forms; soul and R&B and funk are just part of it. And music is, as always, multicolored, multicultural.

Good point...moving it back for now.

OK, I finished the article, and while reading the last paragraphs I was kicking around my big-picture response. I had it! Then, as I read the little bio at the end, it was too good to be true: the author got his Master's in English in 2016. My overarching comment was going to be something saying the article was superficially impressive. It cited relevant material, it had a good amount of historical information, and as I said earlier, there were and are racist and racial aspects of pop music. But the whole thing felt like an assignment to me. I feel like if you told me to write a paper about how Pet Sounds contributed to institutional racism, I could have written this article (without believing much of it). Maybe this guy really does believe it. I assume so. But his conclusions throughout seems intellectually lazy if so. He's playing to an academic bias, as if he's making sure to reach the right conclusions and use the right phrases and citations to ensure this would be acceptable to an academic advisor or professor.

The only issue is that it's bullshit. It's a cleverly assembled article without much substance. A person could discuss the topic far better than this author did, far more convincingly.

What the hell did I just read?

I dunno. Was it Leskov's "The Enchanted Wanderer?" Camus's "The Stranger?" You need to give us hints.

Haven't read it yet but as someone who works within the Academy and likes The Beach Boys, I am curious.

I have a lot of problems with the institution of academia and, without having read the article yet, it is appears as if this article may be reinforcing the very issues that I have. Nevertheless, I will reserve  my commentary on the article itself until I read it. Nevertheless, I see no problem with engaging with these kinds of interpretations here.

My one comment from what what I have read so far is to question the assumption that "rock became white" (4). Indeed, if you listen to the music on the now famous Anthology of American Folk (the very seeds of what eventually became rock and roll), it is quite difficult to tell what race the singer is - sometimes the singer is black, and sometimes white, and without looking it up or knowing previously, it can be impossible to know. Indeed, the term country blues was used to convey precisely the convergence of different styles from different cultures. Rock and roll, then, from its very inception was a hybrid genre borne out of various, overlapping cultural influences.

Pet Sounds is rock? I've never seen it that way.

Reading the comments below the article is amusing.

I'm not sure what the author's point was (did he even have a point?), but if he expects people to not compose music that reflects their own upbringing and background, he's fighting an uphill battle. The BB's were raised in suburban, mostly-white middle class California. So they're going to write music that reflects that upbringing. So what? What does he expect? If everyone who pretended or purported to perform what we call "Rock Music" all performed music that sounded like Chuck Berry or BB King just to assuage some sort of racial conscience, it would all sound the same and we would lose a lot of variety.

BTW, I think someone needs to have the writer of that article read this (http://earcandy_mag.tripod.com/rrcase-jazzwilson.htm), since he seems so obsessed with the origins of their music.

You're dead-on. It's a touchy subject, and I get why, but this is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't proposition. To stay within one's culture, that's racist by propagating the dominant culture. To imitate minority cultures is very widely panned as cultural appropriation. Real artists almost always do some of each (in the good sense, not the insulting sense).

Seems to me this guy is trying to destroy every 'white' artist in music history ::)

To quote eminem

'I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley
To do black music so selfishly
And use it to get myself wealthy
"Hey" there's a concept that works
Twenty million other white rappers emerge'

That's exactly what I thought.  It reads like an essay I would write to sort of pull the wool over the professor's eyes, knowing he is not familiar with what I'm writing about.  Make it long enough, use enough references and the right phrases and he's bound to give me a good grade, even if the point I'm trying to make doesn't really pan out at the end of the essay. 

Aside from that, it goes along with a trend I've been noticing.  Maybe it is being amplified by social media, but I've been noticing more instances of "white people shouldn't do this" as if white people aren't allowed to mix with black culture.  It's ironic that these people are actually calling for reverse segregation, such as the UCLA students that want their own "Afro-house" for black students only. 

There is a difference between imitating or appropriating a culture thats not yours, and being influenced by another culture. The first leads to a weak parody of the original culture. The second can lead to a merging and melding of ideas that transcend both cultures to become something unique.

I think Pet Sounds represents influence rather than appropriation. And without the free flow of cultural influence, our world would be missing much of what makes it beautiful.

I mostly agree with this, but with the unfortunate caveat that the difference between the two is subjective: I might truly love reggae [Note: I hate reggae. Ed.] and truly be playing it to the best of my ability out of respect, but the listener might see a Scandinavian-American Upper Midwesterner appropriating Jamaican music. A little generosity of spirit is important on all fronts.


That's wisdom. And so to debase it, let me add: inbreeding is gross. This counts for culture, too.

100% with you

All we need now is Rocky's "book" ;D

The evil of things like "cultural appropriation", like "microagreessions", "intersectionality" and "safe spaces" are concepts propagated by fascists.

America at its best is an exercise in cultural appropriation.

Now excuse me - my Kung Pao fajitas are ready.

That actually sounds awesome :lol

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

A dump truck sized load of pure hogwash.  ::)

Rock N Roll did come from Jazz!

I never and still dont look at it this way! Look at Little Richard he started rock & Roll. The Beach Boys even said that in their song "Do You  Remember" "Little Richard made it and Dick Clark brought it to life!" By the Beach Boys did a song together with Little Richard. The Beach Boys did many Chuck Berry songs another great rock N Roller that will never be forgotten I believe he is still rocking his music once a month!!They did ROCK N ROLL MUSIC, Ring Ring Goes The Bell, Johnny B Goode and toke the riffs of Rockin in the USA for Surfin USA!

It's not that it is more geared towards White more so that the Blacks are not as interested in Rock N Roll. When Rock N Roll started they were more into soul and now it became rap.

So can you Historicizing the Blackness of Rap?

Everyone get offended too easily and are trying to find something out of nothing even if it happened 50 plus years ago.

Personally, I hate the term "whites" for white people and "blacks" for black people. Sounds derogatory. Actually, I long for the day when it will be just "people"....

Hopefully in our lifetime.

Amen to that!

Pet Sounds is not an album that any person other than Brian Wilson could have made. It is so intensely personal that only he could have made it. It has nothing to do with race any in any way, shape or form. And it's also not really a rock album.

Also, part of what is in the article claiming that no black musicians are seen as auteurs is absurd. Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Quincy Jones, Prince, and several rap artists (admittedly my knowledge and interest in rap is minimal) are among black musicians who are seen this way.

I guess I'm supposed to be reading this. Bubs & I tried to read it together but I guess the rest of summer got in the way.

But yeah, it shouldn't be weird or wrong to talk about race & music—are most of the lead singers of the bands I listen to white? Yes. Do I care? Not really. Would I like to see more diversity? Sure.

I only have the energy to skim this right now, but I'm tired of people actively seeking out what's politically incorrect in things that clearly aren't blatant offenses. It makes people who are actually trying to achieve political correctness look like assholes, and it riles up everyone else. Basically, it's stupid and unnecessary.

Pet Sounds remains a powerful album that anyone can relate to; not sure what would compel someone to believe it suggests anything racist.

My only comment on that article is: a -1 for the HUMAN race (like it was needed!).
But I know there's a hamster...

Peter Reum's comments are apposite:

http://petsoundsforum.com/thread/801/60s-white-sounds-pet?page=1&scrollTo=10644

I wont waste my time reading this article.

The color of the letters in the comments are white, is that also a racial component?  :-D If you look hard enough you'll find racism in everything.

No, they're concepts propagated by Marxists. I don't think it will do to co-opt fascism as an all-purpose insult. I'd say the same to those who apply the term to Donald Trump, who I'm quite capable of disliking without lumping him in an inappropriate category.

In any case, the brand of sociological criticism on display in this article is not entirely to my tastes, but I don't think posters here need be quite so defensive about it. The author stresses that Pet Sounds itself is not racist, and that his concern is with the white-rock-album-as-cultural-touchstone, a notion external to the album itself.

I don't think there is a real Marxist alive.

"There are more fuzzy-minded one-worlders, pasty-faced peace creeps, and bleeding-heart bed wetters in America now than there ever were in 1954. The redskis have infiltrated the all-important exercise-video industry, not to mention movies and TV.  Academia, too, is a veritable compost heap of Bolshie brainmulch.  Beardo the Weirdo may have been laughed out of real life during the 1970s, but he found a home in our nation’s colleges, where he whiles away the wait for the next Woodstock Nation by pestering undergraduates with collectivist twaddle when they should be thinking about better car stereos." - P.J. O'Rourke.

More than derogatory, I consider them wildly inaccurate. Nobody is really white or black. Nor yellow, nor red.

Captain Beefheart puts it rather well:

"I’ve watched what they’ve tried to do to [Ornette Coleman], and I tell ya, I don’t like it. I don’t think they’re trying to do the same thing to me because I’m a white boy, you see----which is ridiculous because everybody’s coloured or you wouldn’t be able to see them. I mean, really, I don’t feel that I’m any colour, and he doesn’t either. He just wants to play."

Source: http://www.beefheart.com/a-study-of-captain-beefheart-by-patrick-carr/

We may ridicule it, but this is the kind of thesis ( acclaim for Pet Sounds as a rockist construct of white privilege) that can stick in today's political climate. If PS ever again tops a Best Albums of All Time list, I bet accusations of racism will be leveled.

Pretentious academic drivel...

Um, yeah. I'm pretty sure this reeks heavily not only of "click bait" in terms of its place on the internet, but also reminds me a great deal of those college exercises in writing an essay by picking a type of criticism from "Column A" and a topic from "Column B."

It's like tackling feminist criticism as it relates to Ringo's 1982 album "Stop and Smell the Roses".

Or tackling religious criticism as it pertains to "Goin' to the Beach."

Or political criticism as it relates to the Beatles' "12 Bar Original."

You can apply any type of criticism to any topic/subject and blather on about something or other. There are a bunch of other reasons I think this essay is silly (for one, I sense the author thinks the "Pet Sounds" album specifically was ubiquitous throughout pop culture in the US in 1966; I don't think it was taken note of nearly as much back in 1966 as the author seems to imply), but ultimately this thing reads very much like one of those in-class essays written purely for the exercise of being handed a specific topic.

So, they specifically train people to write pretentious (and absurd) academic drivel. No wonder they keep on doing that for the whole of their academic lives... >:D

Juat ran across another article in a similar vein that talks about a new book by Jack Hamilton, Just around Midnight: Rock and Roll and the Racial Imagination:
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/09/race_and_the_rock_hall_how_ign.html

Maybe this book is why we're seeing articles like the PS one, which I think is an academic excercise in stretching one's case to extremes.

Exactly. I never ever thought I'd see my favorite album being used as a tool for such backwards thinking.

Just 16 years after Pet Sounds was released the number one selling album of all time was made by an African American. Two of the top four selling albums are by African Americans. Yet we're supposed to peg Pet Sounds as the album that led to "institutionalized prejudice" towards African American rock music? I think the writer specifically chose "rock" because his argument would make even less sense if he were covering the other genres. Jazz, RnB, pop, hip-hop - what race dominates those genres? African Americans. And does anyone complain? NOPE. Music evolves, that's all that happened. Capitol Records was not run by a group of southern Alabamian Klan members - it was run by people who looked at dollar signs.

It's telling that at a time when there were still colored-only bathrooms scattered throughout the USA it was the record companies that were releasing African American hits that lit up the charts. If anything, the record companies gave America a glimpse at a culture foreign to us, and we liked it and wanted more of it. It's also telling that the most famous rendition of 'The Star Spangled Banner' was done by an African American rock artist at the most famous gathering of rock musicians ever.

All I can say is consider the source. Pop Matters was the platform on which this gem of inanity was published, by an author who saw fit to join this forum and flat out duck and dodge any direct questions about what he had published to the point of pissing off most readers:

For die-hard Beach Boys fans, there is a very special kind of knot that appears in their stomach each time someone decides to drag out Brian Wilson for another go-around. You know that feeling when your elderly grandparent is wheeled out by your overbearing aunt to make a speech at Thanksgiving dinner—that “Oh, just let him eat his jello in peace!” feeling? It’s a bit like that.

Now it's this. I won't personally insult or try to degrade the writer of this one. I would ask directly if the author of this new article would be able to summarize what he wrote or what he was trying to postulate specific enough to Pet Sounds to zero in on that album out of literally dozens of other "classics", in a sentence or two. If that is not possible, then whatever hypothesis he's trying to either make or prove in this column holds no water with me.

I recall watching a documentary about an all black heavy metal (or was it punk?) band from the 70s. They were quite good, but they never got pushed because they 'weren't supposed to do that kind of music' apparently. Perhaps there is a double standard because there seem to always be white people doing rap, r&b, etc, but you don't see many all black rock bands very much at all. My guess is many have tried but record labels wouldn't sign them.

I see this purposely stupid drivel is already being passed around on Facebook and the like. I seem to recall a similar article/thesis last year trying to paint Pet Sounds as racist. That article got traction for about an afternoon and died a quick death once everyone started to think about it. Interest in this will fade away soon enough.

My take on this is that Barbara Ann, which also sounds 'white' sold better than God Only Knows.

Again, just consider the source which published it. And the rest falls into place.

That popmatters guy was a nutcase.... ::)

He either couldn't or simply didn't wish to defend the words he wrote and which Pop Matters published. That said it all in that case. I'd offer the same thing to this author - state your hypothesis and back it up with a summary in one or two sentences. As my English teachers used to say, give us the "main idea" of the piece. If he can't do that, it holds no water with me.

There certainly is such a thing as racism. We need to distinguish between one bad article and reality in the world, no question about that. I think decisions like you mention above have a lot to do with marketing, more than overt and intentional racism. It would not surprise me to see label execs considering a hard rock band of black musicians and thinking, "how do I market this? Black people don't listen to this..." We see stories about similar questions in mainstream television: execs fearing more than one black character for fear of it being seen as a "black show" and losing white viewers.

Vernon Reid of Living Colour used to talk about the challenges they faced as an all-black rock band in the '80s. A lot of it was about the marketing, not the actual audiences or reception of the music.

Expectations and context do play into a lot of these decisions, and the results can be racist even if the incidents aren't intentionally and overtly racist.

But again, this article doesn't present much (if any) actually compelling evidence or arguments.

Friends, welcome to the professor's world: please don't worry yourselves about looking for substance. In the modern academy, critical analysis has been replaced with the simple binary matrices of race, class and gender. Simply to assert the existence of one matrix in any given context (here re: Pet Sounds) is, in itself, the entirety of the critical argument.  I get paid for combating this "Chinese cultural revolution" type of totalitarian thinking in real life, so pardon me if I say no more about it here, where I draw no pay. 

Believe me, professor, you are pardoned in full. :lol

I don’t have that much of a problem with this article and I think a lot of the reaction is defensive, not just against the article but against cultural trends that make people uncomfortable. The article is actually not saying much that’s new or revelatory or even accusatory. It’s just saying it in terms that push buttons.

It seems to me to basically positing that:

-there is a “white” culture based in the suburbs and a “black” culture based in the cities. This is arguable. One could, of course, argue that suburban vs. urban is a class difference more than a race difference, but certainly in the ‘50s and ‘60s, there were a lot of suburban places that actively prevented black home owners and certainly even now there’s a racial imbalance between suburbs and cities, so while one may reasonably disagree that race is the key factor, the assertion isn’t outlandish.

-that “rock and roll” was essentially an urban and black genre from the mid-50s until the early 60s. I’d say, again, that this is arguable – counter-examples are easy to find and what “rock and roll” means is itself arguable, but some of the counter-examples put forth already actually support this assertion. Stax and Motown’s heydays were within the period cited. If you look at the charts in the early 60s vs the late 60s, I think you’ll see that the racial balance shifted toward white. I don’t know this, but I’m willing to hypothesize that the suburban/urban market ratio also grew significantly during that period.

-that there was appropriation of black artists' work by white artists. This is certainly true. In the early ‘60s many white artists, Pat Boone is a prime example, but you can find many instances, covered songs by black artists and made substantially more income off of those songs. If you look at this from a corporate perspective, rather than an artist perspective, you have big corporations, run at that time pretty much exclusively by white men, trolling the independent black labels for songs, rerecording them with white artists, and making a bundle. Could they have succeeded by recording more black artists at the big labels and distributing those? I don’t know. The market plays into this. But whether it was driven by racial preferences in the market or at the corporations does not erase the fact that there were racial factors in play.

-that the Beach Boys were among the early white artists to make original rock and roll that was primarily suburban in marketing, in lyrics, in message. Hard to argue.

-that in the latter ‘60s, there was an intellectualization of rock and roll and this is what transformed rock and roll into rock. This is where it gets really fuzzy to me and I think the article collapses. I agree that there was an intellectualization of some popular music that wasn’t intellectualized before. Previously only folk was really intellectual, now some part of ‘rock’ was, but the differentiation between ‘rock and roll’ and ‘rock’ is fuzzy enough. That ‘rock’ = intellectualized ‘rock and roll’ is obscure.

-that the intellectualization was a major factor in the separation of black artists from rock. Again, we’re in fuzzy territory. I agree that, since the late 60s, early 70s, what has been considered “rock” has been mainly the work of white artists. In the early 60s, rock and roll was a racially mixed genre with black artists being predominant. By the early 70s, most ‘rock’ is by white artists and most black artists’ music is being labeled ‘soul,’ ‘r&b,’ etc. While there are, of course, counter-examples, the most popular genre of music went from basically integrated but led by black artists to basically segregated and led by white artists. So the segregation is real. That it's due to intellectualization is dubious.

-That Pet Sounds was a part of the process of intellectualizing rock and thus a part of the process of segregating rock. I’ve already posited that I think the intellectualizing of part of rock has a tenuous relationship to the segregation, but I’ll say further that I think it’s unclear that Pet Sounds is a rock record.

So, I don’t agree with the article’s conclusions, but I don’t think a lot of the comments here are even responsive to the article’s arguments.

Also, the article in no way argues that the Beach Boys were, themselves, racist.

I am   ;D ;)
(http://i64.tinypic.com/1676vf7.jpg)

Emily is on the money.

There are 2 things that you cannot deny - The Beach Boys are a very "white" band and Pet Sounds is, without a doubt, "white" music made for white people. This is a symptom of the time, place and people involved. Did they create with malice? Of course not. Does this make the music any less wonderful? No. But cultural context is important to place these things in.

They most certainly are not. This line of thinking is a consequence of a dedicated propaganda campaign. Please see my own discussion on the topic in this thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10569.msg383815.html#msg383815

Thanks so much, Emily.  I wouldn't have begun to address all these issues with your clarity, and appreciate what you've said here.  There are certainly some more than shaky premises, and conclusions in the article.  But like you, I don't mind the exploration of this subject.

I truly felt like I knew what Brian's comment about "white spiritual music" meant (although I don't specifically recall it, it was a crucial part of this written submission's premises, it appears) because I heard him talk about his musical influences so often, and he was joyous about them when he spoke. To me, it was respectful of the idea that he wanted to capture the same spiritual power as gospel music with his personal background - "white" suburban America.  

The "white" and "black" references do a disservice to people, as far as I'm concerned - we're all shades of beige-brown), but we're stuck with them for now and there was still a cultural split at that time - far less in the music community.  I saw Brian's work as a healing and integrating element, from my perspective.  From what I could observe of the jazz community people and their opinions, Brian's work was beloved by many.  

Of course Brian's quote was included out of context (and I haven't gone to look it up yet in the book).  I know Brian had enormous respect for his musical influences and I certainly never saw any racist qualities expressed - none.  I agree with you that this was more likely not a comment on the BBs personally and more a commentary on the environment and business that surrounded them.  That argument would have far more validity.  

Whether it will be read that way is another thing.  Like this weird US election, I'm guessing each person will read it in their own little universe and it will fit their own personal experiences and their general narrative.

I just think it's a thing to define just about everything as either Marxist or Fascist. It's a way of dismissing rather than engaging.
Also, when someone comes along who demonstrates actual fascist tendencies, it's now easy to dismiss people who point that out as just labeling that person based on the tendency to do so, without engaging.

Moved to general music discussion.

It's just some young person's MA thesis, guys. Nothing to get worked up about. Three-quarters of the people I know wrote something that looked exactly like this in the last 10 years.

Emily's post above is good, btw.

Ahah, nice one. I love the Marx brothers. ALL of them...:hat

I agree with everything you say. My guess is that the inclusion of Pet Sounds in this article was just a way to make it relevant enough to popular discussion to get it published. I also I don't think the author was claiming that the quote about "white spiritual music" was racist, so much as an apt description of what Brian Wilson was doing. I think the author agrees with Brian Wilson and is not claiming Brian Wilson was racist for saying so. I think the author used that quote, perhaps incorrectly, to illustrate a general trend of the "whitening" of rock. As I don't really think Pet Sounds is rock, I think it's a bad example. But while Brian Wilson obviously was influenced by many black artists, it's clear the Beach Boys' market was white.

Regarding talking about people in terms of 'black' and 'white' - it's an interesting topic, perhaps for the sandbox if it becomes an active topic. As long as perceived race is a factor in economic or social outcomes or in culture, ignoring race in economic, social or cultural discussions is dishonest. However, if discussing race solidifies it as a factor, discussing it would be counter-productive. It's an interesting thing to think about, to me.

Agreed. Glenn Greenwald has said some interesting things about how Godwin's law is not inherently a bad thing.

My commentary on the article and the comments on the article:

One needs to be familiar with the actual day-to-day context into which a work of art was introduced and thrived in order to make either a defense of this specific piece, or justify both its hypothesis/premise/conclusion and basic existence. I'm not seeing that in the follow-ups.

If a writer is going to use an album like Pet Sounds to state his premise and attempt to prove that premise, that in itself is absurd.

Some have gone back and tried to place everything surrounding Pet Sounds and Smile into a historical context. Not only the summary textbook style telling of events, but the actual daily/weekly/monthly events that surrounded the creation of these works. Current news, current music, TV, radio, film, advertising, fashion, regional trends (i.e. what made New York different from LA and different from Chicago in Spring 1966, Fall 1966, etc.) If context is key, the music created at a specific time never came from a vacuum, it didn't spring out of nowhere.

What is key in this case, since music is the focus of this article, would be what did the market into which an album like Pet Sounds was entering actually sound like, what did it consist of, and what else was surrounding it?

Why and how did Frank Zappa's debut album come out on Verve in 1966, a jazz label? Why did Jac Holzman, a figure in jazz, sign and release Love and the Doors on Elektra? How did the radio stations which were crucial to spreading this music sound, what did their playlists consist of?

For the radio portion of it, there is no simple answer. Every market from 66-69 had a different "sound" and a different style. Why did Boston top-40 play records which midwest top-40 wouldn't touch, and why did LA radio play what Philly never spun at all, or vice versa?

Someone needs to study those points in order to make such statements as in this article and the commentary following up.

Let's zero in on LA top 40, since it was what Brian Wilson would have been hearing when his work was being created and released. KHJ, KRLA, KBLA...1966 into 67.

Check the playlists, if available listen to the aircheck recordings from LA and the SoCal area. Motown next to soul, well-produced "pop" next to garage rock, Beatles next to Temptations, etc. East coast, West coast, south, etc. Wilson Pickett, Young Rascals, Sinatra (yes, Sinatra), Dionne Warwick, Lesley Gore, Junior Walker, Herb Alpert...

These diverse styles heard on top 40 - which was the market the singles and the album this author is using to postulate his theory - existed in the same music sweeps, in between the commercials and announcements. Listeners wanted it, they tuned in for the music. They heard what they liked, and they bought the 45 for 79 cents or dropped the 3-4 bucks for the LP.

Were there "R&B" stations and formats? Of course, just as there were classical, country, and easy listening MOR formats on the AM dial. But Top 40 was the delivery system for getting the music to the market, i.e. the listeners. Was there funny business going on in the business practices? No one denies it. It is a part of the entertainment business period. To this very minute. That's the reality.

So where is the Pet Sounds album and its singles fitting into this author's ideas on racism? Did he or any commenters ever listen to these broadcasts or scan the weekly surveys from the LA market in 66-67 to see what the actual formats and market he's pinning his theory onto sounded like?

I wasn't going to comment, but when I got caught up on the posts, I saw a disconnect - a wide one in some cases - existing between dissecting the sociology of the topic versus the actual words written by the author and his theories which he postulated on the back of the Pet Sounds album.

The author had a bogus premise, in my opinion, to begin with. He chose a convenient vehicle to carry it, a lightning rod if you will to generate interest 50 years after the fact. His choosing a specific album from a specific year and spinning his theories around it told me all I needed to know. As a clinical/educational research and analysis project, it failed because the premise hinges on a single album within a musical and pop culture context that the author barely if ever dissects or even describes. How was "Sloop John B" existing in the scene it was actually in, via top 40 radio and the kids buying the records, next to the R&B and soul records being played and bought by the same demographic?

It's a faulty premise to begin with. The "main idea" isn't clear. The statement followed by analysis and dissection followed by conclusion or proven hypothesis is scattered all over the sociological spectrum, yet "Pet Sounds" is the headline and assumed main topic of the dissertation. I can only assume that since the album is used as the vehicle to back up the theories offered by the article.

Now we have comments and this piece being shared around - attaching Pet Sounds directly (in the author's case) to existing racism of the mid to late 60's if not pinning future societal issues to this specific album's place within its era and by nature of its very creation.

If people want to really talk about it, I mean *really* talk about these issues and put them into the context of top 40 music trends and demographics of the 60's, ignore this article. It's flawed, faulty, and based on a premise which wouldn't even qualify for the term "threadbare logic".

It felt like something which needed a clickbait headline to generate interest and shares/views, and Pet Sounds happened to come under the microscope. Pop Matters can add this to its previous publication of a reviewer comparing a new Brian Wilson project to wheeling grandpa out for Thanksgiving dinner in a wheelchair.

Shame on them. Don't click on the site, simple solution to that one.

If you're going to discuss the real history and context of the music like Pet Sounds in an intellectual or educational manner, discuss it with some intellectual or educational knowledge of the subject matter and the historical context. Such context would have taken Pet Sounds or any similar album from 1966-67 out of consideration for becoming the basis of such an article.

Well said Craig.

The author forgot to mention Pet Sounds disappointed on the charts while a guy named Jimi Hendrix was rocketing to stardom and dismissing the beach boys sound.

It's a legitimate point but a horrible example. Early beatles/beach boys stuff? Sure. But an underappreciated album that was more chamber pop than rock and roll anyway? Dont see in any way how it limited black rock and rollers at the time.

Jimi was actually commenting on Dick Dale's sound.  They were friends you know.
------------------------------------------------------------------

To place the Pet Sounds album into a conversation about race is ONLY valid if it is seen as a snap shot of the 'way of life' the artist(s) knew first hand.  Not yet 'worldly' or 'experienced' on matters beyond their own encased reality Pet Sounds is as real as it could get for many middle-class kids trying their hand at maturing in the middle 1960s.  {Note to Mike Love:  We, too, matured along with those responsible for recording this artful time capsule which was so relevant that it still rings true 50 + years later.  So?  Enough about the beach.}

I agree that Pet Sounds is not a good album to use in the context of the article. I also agree that the article fails in its main thesis. But I think the reaction against the article in this thread is both disproportionate and misguided.  The article really isn't about the Beach Boys or Brian Wilson, or even Pet Sounds. Yes, that was thrown in as click-bait. But the article makes many valid points that are being dismissed for reactionary reasons.

Get that identity politics, SJW nonsense off this board. Bad enough that it's polluted whole corners of the Internet...

Perfect illustration.

SJW nonsense? Ok...here's the thing..."Social justice warrior"is  pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views; including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, political correctness, and identity politics. I happen to be a VERY strong supporter of equality and civil rights. I don't agree with this article at all for the reasons listed by numerous people here, but care to explain a bit? Not flaming you or anything, I just read so many complaints about "SJWs" and for the life of me I can't understand what's bad about it. I guess I'm asking more for an explanation so I will understand! I never heard of the term until recently, so that's why I'm asking.

"white spiritual sound" - the symphony to God was not going to be based on black gospel, but rather an extension of the sound the Beach Boys had already been doing, a multi-part harmony with jazz influences (Four Freshmen).  There was a "white gospel" sound (Elvis Presley grew up in that environment and recorded "white gospel") which was very different from "black gospel."

And didn't white spiritual sound refer to Smile, not Pet Sounds?

Snap...that's right...it WAS for Smile. Good catch.

The headline was the clickbait. The entire crux of the article revolves around the writer's attempts to tie his commentary and citing of quotes and published sources to the Pet Sounds album. Every one of the 4 pages ties the sociology to the Beach Boys and Pet Sounds specifically, and proceeds to paint a picture of Pet Sounds as the prime example of what the author is trying to convey. The logic of such claims is absurd, as specific as multiple points on every page which are intertwined with the album.

If the main focus of the piece is the Pet Sounds album, and that is not a good example to use, if the article fails in its main thesis...isn't that similar to ordering breakfast and getting cold eggs, under-cooked homefries, and burnt toast and saying it was a good meal because the diner gave free refills on the coffee?

I don't think the clickbait was just the headline. I suspect the author was already thinking about the subject matter, saw that Pet Sounds is temporally relevant, and tried to weave Pet Sounds into an existing theory, exactly as you say: "The entire crux of the article revolves around the writer's attempts to tie his commentary and citing of quotes and published sources to the Pet Sounds album." You seem to have picked up on the same thing that I did. Pet Sounds is an afterthought - something he's attempting and, I think you and I agree, failing to tie into his theory.
I don't think the main focus of the piece really is Pet Sounds.
Regarding the failure of the main thesis, no, it's not like a gross breakfast. It's more like trying to prosecute someone and the jury thinks your evidence makes for a very likely scenario, but a couple of the pieces don't quite fall into place, so they don't feel that it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually, Jimi Hendrix was several months from really becoming a known artist. He didn't make his debut in America until June of 1967.

Good point...as that famous quote came in June 1967 at the Monterrey Pop festival, where our Boys were originally supposed to perform...

GF's comments about top 40 radio of the era are dead on. As I'm fond of saying, context is everything and this "article" is sorely lacking it.

No doubt GF's comments about LA radio are correct. It seems to me, however, completely irrelevant to the article. The article is not saying that by 1966 rock had become segregated; the article nowhere says that top 40 stations exclusively played rock, even after it had segregated; and the article doesn't suggest that Brian Wilson wasn't listening to black artists.

I thought the Jimi Hendrix "no surf music" comment was about Dick Dale, who was dealing with cancer at the time, and not about the Beach Boys at all.

(Edit: Oops, I had not seen Add Some's post above before I posted this message.)

Playing the race card, be it outright calling somebody or something racist or implying that there is some malevolent racist element to a perspective, is also a way of dismissing rather than engaging.  Nothing ends a discussion quicker than calling somebody a racist.  SJWs get a lot of criticism because, despite their generally noble intentions, they seem to view everything through a ridiculously narrow prism-- be it race, gender, etc. and usually out of context. Their zeal is uber-religious and completely intolerant of other views.

Somebody earlier mentioned the parsing of everything into terms of race, and that a racial element will soon be part of every Beach Boys conversation. We're already there. I'm a public school teacher and students tell me all the time that I'm racist for liking the Beach Boys.  Awesome where we're heading, eh?

Well said!

"Pet Sounds and Race."  God Almighty.  Where/when will this end?

Unfortunately, it won't. Everything can be, nay, MUST be viewed through the racial prism until it's finally clear to you that you're a horrible person and everything you hold dear is evil and racist. And probably sexist, too. :)

I wonder why the author didn't target the Beatles. They aren't just white, they are Un-american, which is even worse. :3d

There's no reason it should end: topics and questions can and should be open for discussion. One would just hope for more interesting treatments and, if I may piggyback on some of what Emily said, fewer knee-jerk (and that classic populist/anti-intellectual) responses.

Anti-academic, Captain. It's not the same. And "knee-jerk response" is a classic straw man, used for responses one does not like.

If there is a straw man, it might be the article, its author, and even academia (which I've already criticized in this thread and elsewhere) being used for target practice by some (but not all) people here. Some responses don't indicate the posters even read the article, they're just taking their straw-man version of what they're assuming it might say and spouting their typical complaints about fascists, or Marxists, or SJWs, or academia, or this particular publication, or whatever else.

My response to the article was very critical, so don't misunderstand where I'm coming from, either. Just saying the righteous fury against Big Bad Eggheads and the Great Satan of Political Correctness gets pretty tiresome when its not actually specific or on point, but just gnashing of teeth.

I take your point, but have you considered that the gnashing of teeth that you find tiresome might be, in part, a response to the gnashing of teeth from the SJW side?

To be clear, I'm all for honest discussion. Questions should be asked, but that's not what I see happening.  I see an aggressive, veritably religious movement that is less interested in honest dialogue than converting the masses to their faith. Articles like this (yep, read it) are symptomatic of that movement.  What you see as tiresome fury is actually resistance to that movement.  And while I too would prefer thoughtful, non-knee jerk discussion, the onus for this is on the movement, not the resistance.

Eh, I don't know. Nobody ever says "you know, my side is really at fault here." Not even "my side is equally at fault here." Just "MOMMMMM!!!!!!! He started it!" I agree with a lot of the criticism of what are derogatorily called SJWs. But I don't even like the term for reasons Billy noted earlier. I wrote a little on another board and don't feel like I ought to pollute two boards with my same nonsense, so I'll just summarize with the idea that refraining from lumping together people under insulting names (that aren't even insulting when taken literally, and are funny to use as an insult: You fucking superstar! You goshdarn nice person! Motherfucking saint!) is a good idea, as is trying to be charitable with people's motives and sincerity when possible, even when they're wrong.

But this is completely hyperbolic. This is the second conversation or article I've seen that discusses the Beach Boys in terms of race (I'm not saying there aren't more but they are nowhere near being "a part of every Beach Boys conversation." )
And look at the reaction. It appears anti-'SJWs' have more fervor than 'SJWs'.
And no one called anyone racist. But your comment is a good illustration of where the comments are coming from, and it's not reflective of what the article actually says.

Captain, I don't like terms like SJW too (do I ever use them?), and agree that they are overused, and often misused to attack people.
But also don't like this dismissal of even harsh criticism against that article as reactionary, populist and anti-intellectual. That's little better than name calling, and there should be the freedom of expressing an opinion about such as a single article without people jumping to wild guesses about one's whole philosophical and political outlook. Guesses that are often completely wrong.
I read all of the article right at the start of this thread, and find it appalling on many levels. Not having Craig's or HeyJude's "pen", I'll leave it at that for now.
As for the Academy, I'll never love it.

Don't mistake my overall comments as being directed toward you. Please note, I was pretty specific in saying I wasn't speaking about everyone. But neither am I going to re-read however many pages we're up to just to point fingers at the people I think are fitting my criticisms (which would be unnecessarily rude, anyway). All is well.

Best way to shut down a discussion: "Racism!"

Second best way to shut down a discussion: "See, your comment just proves my point!!"

Emily, you seem very annoyed that some of us are reacting to the general issue rather than the article specifically.  I will admit that I have used this thread to vent/dialogue about misplaced activism. Since I reject the article's premise, I see no benefit in limiting my discussion to its specific bullet points.

Re: what you called hyperbole, I find it odd and disturbing that so many jr. high/high school students have told me to ditch the Beach Boys because racism.  Because their music stemmed from a systemically racist environment.  Amazingly, when I showed a C50 performance in class last year, I was asked why Darian chooses to associate himself with Brian's band and that genre.  It's weird, it's real, and it's one of the reasons I responded to this post.

It seems to me that the perception of someone or something being called racist actually led to 4 pages, so far, of discussion. And, despite the fact that you find it offensive for me to say that your comment illustrates my point (and I am sorry about that), you actually go on to agree - that you are reacting not to the specific article but to what you consider to be misplaced activism, which was exactly my point. I think this article is being dragged through the mud because people are primed to respond negatively to discussions of race. As I said, the article itself is flawed, but it's not in the ways people seem to be implying it is.
And I agree that people saying you should stop listening to not-racist music because racism is annoying. You could point out to them that all American music stemmed from a systematically racist environment, so I guess they'd better stop listening to music altogether.

Sincere question, Emily: why do you think people are primed to respond negatively to discussions about race?

Because it makes them feel bad.

Actually, no it didn't. The quote in question("and you'll never hear surf music again") is from "Third Stone From The Sun" from the "Are You Expserienced?" album.

Good point, Craig.  I didn't emphasize that enough in my comments - sort of danced around it.  With PS the foundation of the argument, it's ridiculous.  Social and industry influences of the time might have been a decent premise if the student/author had provided better references.  But Pet Sounds was so multi-cultural in its musical influences, and accepted on a multi-cultural level, as well, that it's one of the worst examples that could have been chosen for the premise.

And why does it make them feel bad? Because they're racist?

Good vibrations was psychedelic R&B.

I suppose there are a variety of reasons that I don't fully understand. I expect for some, it's partially because they're racist; I expect for some, it's because they think they or someone they care about or admire is wrongly being called racist. It seems that most don't believe that racism is an active force in our society and I think some think that talking about racism creates unnecessary conflict.

I appreciate and totally agree with your response.

Here's where I wish I had a "like" button. :-)

Edited to add:  :bw

This is my version of a like button... :bw

 :bw  :-D

 :bw

(http://images.hitfix.com/photos/2371805/brian-wilson-july2011_article_story_main.jpg)

That one needs to be an emoticon too!  ;D

Thank you John, though I'm not very clever and I can't tell whether I'm being teased or praised. And either way I take your comment in a very wonderful and affectionate spirit.




uote author=john k link=topic=24451.msg591597#msg591597 date=1475093539]

Believe me, professor, you are pardoned in full. :lol
[/quote]

Praised. And thank you, sir.

Does the author know that the Wreckin' Crew were jazz musicians, which is the least racist musical subculture that one could imagine?

lol yah ok jazz wasn't segregated at all!

(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/31/101931-050-84A7EACA.jpg)

You picked a really bad example in Benny Goodman if that photo of him is supposed to prove a point.

I can expand a lot on the topic of jazz, especially that era, but I'd suggest you research these names: John Hammond, Charlie Christian, Teddy Wilson, Lionel Hampton, Fletcher Henderson, and related jazz figures and see how it all ties in...and makes the example of that photo completely irrelevant. It's a fascinating topic to research and if anything, maybe you'll be able to check out some great jazz of the 30's in the process.

I'd be more than happy to discuss it, but consider that Goodman (the bandleader with the clarinet in the photo) led one of if not the most prominent "mixed race" (using the term from the era 'mixed') bands in the 1930's during a time when certain hotels wouldn't allow black musicians to use the same elevators as white musicians in New York. And it was guys like Hammond who fought hard against that racism and supported and promoted musicians based on their music, not race, and in some cases paid their own money to get the black musicians recorded and played on the radio. Hammond also discovered Billie Holliday in her teens and got her first recording date with...Benny Goodman. The guy playing clarinet in the photo.

Just like the original thesis on Pet Sounds...bad example.

It wasn't the musicians.

Benny Goodman at an October 1940 session with John Hammond (standing), Charlie Christian (electric guitar, front row), and Count Basie with members of his band including Freddie Green, Lester Young, Walter Page, Jo Jones, and Buck Clayton.

(http://riverwalkjazz.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/WhizKid_HammondSession7.jpg)

Touché, Guitarfool!

The "classic" Dave Brubeck Quartet was integrated and went through a lot of grief for it (for example, on a TV appearance the producer wanted to make sure bassist Eugene Wright wasn't seen. Brubeck would have none of that)

Louis Armstrong's band in the 50s was integrated - as a result he wasn't allowed to perform in his home town (shame!)

lol thanks for mansplaining jazz to me!

If you can pick out examples of "mixed" groups and say they had a hard time for it, I think that kind of underscores the notion that the genre was segregated.

  It definitely could have been.

  Chuck Berry obviously meant more to The Beach Boys than any white rock & rollers of the 50s. Especially Carl and Mike.

Actually, I'm pretty sure GF meant that although segregation was institutionalized at this point in history, these musicians were pretty intent on thumbing their nose at it. Quite rightly so.

Thanks Craig for being the voice of reason here. As a lover of jazz, black, white and mixed, I'd like to add much but I'll auto-censor. Being dismissed as a reactionary once is enough. If it's some weird test of strength, I'll happily lose. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

 Besides Brubeck and Armstrong, musicians such as Miles Davis and Dizzy Gillespie worked with, recorded with and performed with the likes of Gil Evans, Gerry Mulligan, Chet Baker, Woody Herman and others. They did so because these were top shelf performers and band leaders who fit in well with their particular styles. The backward laws in parts of the US might have been an effort to keep the races apart, but as was posted earlier, these musicians thumbed their noses at that, choosing their personnel for their talents, not their race.

Jazz is/was a segregated genre? No way, in fact the polar opposite is true. If we're talking genres, jazz may have been the single most prominent and popular entertainment genre that fought racism and segregation and effected change at specific times in the 20th century. Jazz and jazz musicians all but forced the culture to take a hard look at the situation and ask what the hell is going on...

It wasn't the musicians. They did in fact thumb their collective noses at the whole thing, a lot of it crystallized in the music itself. It absolutely, positively wasn't the genre.

And how Jazz developed was very multicultural. To traditional African/Creole rhythms (for an example please listen to Gottschalk's " Bamboula" or perhaps Dr. John's "Danse Kalinda Ba Doom"), add some classical. Then, a major event happened in the 1880s when Mexican brass military bands came up to New Orleans. The people were blown away by them, Blacks and Whites alike, as music wise the main instruments used up to that time there were pianos and guitars. Jelly Roll Morton recounted how some of the Mexicans stayed behind, giving music lessons on the various brass/woodwind instruments. All these contributed to the development of Jazz.

Here's another article that discusses the BB in terms of race: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/beach-boys-icon-brian-wilson-on-faith-forgiveness-and-his-new-memoir/article32296927/

Key passage: "For a lot of listeners, the Beach Boys stand for white-dad rock, which stands for a worldview we’re in the necessary process of dismantling."

The article does not specify exactly which worldview is represented or why that worldview is bad and needs to be dismantled, but the sentiment fits right into the popular narrative (which used to be mostly implied but is more frequently vocalized these days), that white culture itself is inherently racist and antithetical to human progress. 

Now, BB = white-dad rock = bad worldview = racist.  Nobody is accusing the band of racism, but the band's music is well on the path toward being regarded as a symbol of racism.

SMH now that is a shame to hear someone write a racist article like that! That is Bigotry and racism at its best. Whats wrong or racist about being a father or listening to BB/Brian Wilson or being "white"?

To put things in perspective...

From wikipedia:


From the same writer of the aticle in question:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/the-brian-wilson-legend-doesnt-resonate-like-it-used-to/article23789134/

features this:


https://thehairpin.com/please-welcome-alexandra-molotkow-3ac670028543#.4x9pi9s0i

Also from Globe and Mail...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/whiteness-is-a-racial-construct-its-time-to-take-it-apart/article32301637/

I'm curious if the people who get terribly angry at "political correctness" for trying to control how people speak about things ever notice how much they themselves try to control how people speak about things.

Just remember that in this thread you bundled together all who dislike that article as "reactionaries". Given my real political opinions, I take "reactionary" as an offence. So, sorry, no lessons accepted.

I consider political correctness as "moral fascism gone to charm school".  PC indignation is selective.  It is narrow- minded.  It's intolerant of human nature.  It's a pose of affluence (very upper-middle class).  It is never about the issue at hand, it is ultimately about power.  So it is bogus.  As a Kindergarten teacher might say, "Doesn't play well with others"...

The problem with "political correctness" is that it mixes a lot a lot of sacrosanct things with a lot of absurdity, with the result that it ends seeming all absurd. Personally, this old "leftist" started realising that there was something deeply wrong with P.C. when it condemned one of the greatest novels ever, Huckleberry Finn, a book who moved me to tears.
But targeting Pet Sounds... really. Even worse. As there is nothing whatsoever in it which can be construed as remotely offensive to anyone, it's simply accused of being "white". Just gimme a break.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWG2dsXV5HI

I'm not sure whether you were referring to my resurrection of this thread or John Lemon's response, but I wonder if you care to actually address my point.

Let me put it another way. I'm white, but I grew up in a section of  Salt Lake City that was majority minority.  Solid majority Hispanic with a lot of Polynesian mixed in.  My school district was the first majority minority district in the state.  My particular neighborhood was mostly Polynesian, so the soundtrack to my childhood was a mix of Jawaiian and traditional Samoan folk. In fact, my first exposure to Beach Boys music was  neighbors playing the surf stuff on ukuleles.  I came to love the traditional Samoan/Tongan stuff the best and I still listen to it heavily today.

Now, let's take the passage I cited before and replace the white stuff with Polynesian:

"For a lot of listeners, Fau'ula stands for Poly-dad folk, which stands for a worldview we’re in the necessary process of dismantling."

Would anybody ever say that? Hell no. It would truly be immoral, bigoted and racist. I find it fascinating that popular Progressive culture finds it cool-- nay, necessary-- to throw one culture/race under the bus as the single exception to their Prime Directive.  The rationale for this is what I'm interested in understanding.

My comment was not specific to your comment, but rather that there are now 6 pages of denunciations of rather mild commentary saying that, basically, rock and roll started out primarily as a black medium and rapidly became a primarily white medium. The denunciations of 'political correctness' and 'social justice warriors' are now a very aggressive silencing and social censoring force of their own. Anti-political correctness, which is basically that you can't criticize racism or sexism, is its own powerful political correctness. But none of the people shouting down people who discuss racism seem to notice that they are trying to control expression every bit as much, and in the same way, as political correctness does.

Regarding your specific comment, if we lived in a society in which the hegemonic power and culture had been, for centuries, Polynesian - in a culture in which virtually all senators, congress people, presidents, judges, business leaders, governors, millionaires and billionaires, news reporters and anchor people, and talk show hosts and show runners had been Polynesian - though a significant minority of the population had been white people all that time; and if that society had actually, for the vast majority of that time, up until the living memory of many white people,  by law suppressed white people; and if in that society white people still disproportionately experienced violence and incarceration by the state, and if there remained, say, 42% of the population supporting a Polynesian presidential candidate with a life-long history of anti-white statements and actions, I would find it not offensive that someone wrote a mention of 'Poly-dad' music.

Your view is based on several assumptions, some of which I outright reject and some of which I'm open to considering, provided that reliable data can be produced that supports them.  

Your first claim, that Western culture (which you simplify as "white") collectively holds an inordinate percentage of power/money, is anecdotal and very generalized, but probably true.  You see that as inherently bad, and most of the people I hear this argument from are convinced that it MUST be the result of tyranny and oppression rather than a mix of that and, say, dumb luck or innovation.  That view also assumes that every member of that race has somehow benefited from this, and that all members of that race are collectively responsible for the bad.

While you can point to some specific periods where the dominant white culture legally suppressed others, I reject the assumption that this is the case today, especially when compared to other current situations in the world.  

I'm open to considering your implication that minorities disproportionately experience violence and incarceration by the state, provided you can produce supporting data from official government sources (so, like, not Mother Jones or the Southern Poverty Law Center).  

Your last point is politics, and I reject it for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that said presidential candidate was never referred to as racist until he put an (R) after his name.  Said candidate, in fact, has been a Democrat all his life and has financially supported his Democratic opponent for 30 years.  This argument discounts voters who find his opponent utterly corrupt and equally disgusting (which I'm sure you attribute to misogyny), and have determined him to be the slightly lesser of two evils.  I think Trump is a scumbag, but guess who my Polynesian neighbors support?  Racist bastards!

The points about white privilege are well-taken, however Pet Sounds is beautiful and eternal, and will likely survive any BS thrown at it. Art is born from the set of circumstances that lead to it's creation, but ultimately the creation itself stands independent of those things. Pet Sounds and Forever Changes are to me the same "type" of music, whose only color is GOLDEN. And Arthur Lee would be pissed if anyone told him he was playing "white" music ... art and creativity and creative scenes transcend social constructs such as "race".

A small point - I made no reference in my above comment to "white" culture; just to "white" people. And you've made some incorrect assumptions about my assumptions.
Second, I'm not going to have an argument on whether 300+ years of race-based slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow had race-based economic outcomes. Even if it didn't, my point would be unchanged. I would still, given that one ethnicity has a cultural, political and economic hegemony and has had for centuries for any reason, not feel offended by someone making a reference to "x-culture-dad music."
Regarding said candidate, in the New York media market he's been a known racist since I was a child.

Yep...this is nothing new.

I agree.

I genuinely don't know how that could be possible though and I don't like Clinton at all.

Just today, Clinton unveiled a new policy aimed at recovery for poor families that goes against the terrible welfare-reform policies that she has touted in the past. Meanwhile I don't think Trump has a single position that looks like it will help anyone.

This belongs in the sandbox, but...

some of us find them both detestable and are not voting for either.

quote author=♩♬ John Lemon ♯♫♩ link=topic=24451.msg592598#msg592598 date=1476239185]
This belongs in the sandbox, but...

some of us find them both detestable and are not voting for either.
[/quote]




(http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj611/Rob_McCabe/FB_IMG_1476294854762.jpg) (http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/Rob_McCabe/media/FB_IMG_1476294854762.jpg.html)

LMFAO that's awesome

 :lol

 I have been a fan of this site for quite awhile but always been too nervous to state my opinion. I am only in my early 20's, a huge Brian fan and I'd hate to see politics creeping into our wonderful music reality of Brian Wilson. The TV is on constantly at our house and I happily put my head phones on to listen to Pet sounds to escape the crazy politics in our world. Can we please get back to the music? Now that I have officially posted my first response I'm anxious to get a real discussion going.

(http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj611/Rob_McCabe/FB_IMG_1476294854762.jpg) (http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/Rob_McCabe/media/FB_IMG_1476294854762.jpg.html)

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

I think the quote function broke

That said


I do feel the same way

I was watching a program that highlights young musicians. One segment involved a black family band from the Wakefiekd section of the Bronx in New York City. They play rock music which I believe was heavy metal or grunge rock. Because they were black, however, people expected them to play only rap or r&b music.

I'm African American and listen to all kinds of music. I have all of the Pet Sounds tracks except for the two instrumentals.  In the Bronx, all I hear are hip hop and Latin music on the streets. I commented to my co-worker that I would like to hear a Barry Manilow or an Elton John song in the Bronx.

I agree.

So's my wife and she's the exact same (and also a die hard BB fan  like me!)

The Beach Boys at one time performed in front of an audience full of black kids at the Ritchie Valens Memorial Dance in Long Beach, Ca. There was barely a white kid there.

Huh...I didn't know that!

Ike and Tina Turner were also in the line up.  The Beach Boys performed after Ike and Tina.  Brian didn't see Ike but saw Tina. Brian said he felt intimidated because they were white boys from a white suburb performing in front of the black kids ready to groove. Brian heard R&B on the radio, but never seen one in person.

It annoys me when people take today's standards and political views and try to apply them to yesterday's art.

I was just talking to my son (he is thirty) about this when we were watching The Three Stooges and Fawlty Towers. What used to be clever or funny is now 'offensive'. And there is always someone somewhere who will be offended by something.

When I listen to a band who was clearly influenced by Chuck Berry and Stevie Wonder and covered Fats Domino song or a Frankie Lymon song, I am not seeing or hearing racism. If you want to judge today's music by today's standards, have a blast - but leave Pet Sounds alone.

Black people in the city jammin' barry manilow :o 

But do you subscribe to the view that racism, say, was invented at some point and then applied to the past or did it always exist even when there were some people who didn't realize it? And if you believe the latter, then don't we have a responsibility to apply our better understanding of things today so that we can actually have a clearer picture of the way things worked in the past?

Criticism is not the same as silencing. Silencing is shutting down debate by screeching things like "check your privilege at the door" when confronted with an uncomfortable argument.

Rock and roll has roots in the African American community. Sombreros have roots in Mexico. Who cares? It is important for historical reasons but beyond that it belongs to all who love it.

African Americans are disproportionately inprisoned because African American commit crimes at a disproportionately higher rate that other ethnicities.

The violence that African Americans suffer at disproportionately higher rates than other ethnicities is primary committed by African Americans. White on black violence is a footnote except to the SJW fascists who are more concerned with tearing society apart than fixing it.

You are not obliged to appreciate 'Pet Sounds' but if you criticize it because it represents 'white culture' and its roots are in 'black culture' then you are an idiot. I have no respect for people who make their ethnicity, gender or orientation the central focus of how they filter life, art and other human beings, because in doing so they are no different than David Duke.

BTW, I am proudly #neverTrump

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

That is flat out false. There's a great deal of scholarship done on this and what it shows uncontroversially is that when a white person and a black person commit the same crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested. In the less likely scenario where both are arrested, studies show that a black person is more likely to receive a longer jail sentence, if the white person would even be incarcerated at all. And what is the reason why black people are arrested for crimes that white people are also committing but are not being arrested for? Because black communities are under greater surveillance, largely because of the assumption that there will be more crime committed there, an assumption that, of course, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because you can't arrest someone for committing the crimes that you aren't watching. All of this has been amply documented, and I can provide sources if you wish.

The phenomenon on the SJW insult is an interesting one. Personally, I think that it has developed because there are certain people who have gone through their lives being able to make fact-less baseless groundless assumptions that are complete nonsense as represented in the quote above and have it go largely unchallenged. In the past decade or so, there has been more organization and more communication amongst progressive groups and this has had the effect that it has become more difficult for that kind of nonsense to pass without thoughtful rebuttal. Thus, the PC world was born. In other words, before the PC shift, I was able to get away with saying whatever false thing I wanted to say on the internet and now I can't. But, of course, for those who have accepted these sorts of massive distortions as the truth, it must look like the world has gone all PC.

Are you arguing that that the crime rate for African-Americans is not disproportionately higher than that of other ethnicities?

And I am sorry - the PC BS is a product of the 60's leftist take over the the humanities in American Universities. In the 60's the big fight had been won but these people want to keep fighting the battle. Unfortunately for them, there is an overwhelming consensus that state sponsored discrimination had to go (remember, Jim Crow was the law, not a choice by individual businesses) so now we must focus on the implied racism of  "taco night", "offensive" Halloween costumes and such. It is beyond absurd, but the fact that our best and brightest take these ideas seriously instead of overwhelmingly rejecting them with the scorn and ridicule they richly deserve does not bode well for the future of the University.

Not content with corrupting the humanities, the newest target of the SJW is STEM. The first shot has been fired as a SJW PHD candidate attacks the scientific method for being sexist:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/

Back to the topic: 'Pet Sounds' is universal because it deals with human feelings about love and loss. I am not sure how race even enters into it. You might be able to put together a suite of Smokey Robinson songs (are we still allowed to call him 'Smokey' or will that trigger somebody?) that could have expressed it as well as Brian but nobody has expressed it better than Brian.

Now thank God the author did not base his screed on BWPS. That is so full of microaggressions that he probably would have put,it in a class with 'Mein Kampf'

The incarceration rate is higher, per capita. But if you read what I wrote above, you'll note that the incarceration is higher because the evidence shows that they are victims of a system that is biased against them. I've provided the information above and I'm happy to engage on that subject.


And I'm sorry but nothing that you describe is remotely leftist. In my experience, and I've worked in a university for ten years now, the humanities are centrists to centre-right in their politics, supporting candidates like Clinton and Obama. And yes, when you are status quo centre-right, you are less likely to focus on systemic concerns (which exist - you characterize the "big fight" as having "been won" but the information I provided above suggests that it is plainly not) and more likely to focus on less substantive matters. My first post in this thread was to offer some criticism of academia but it is not the academia that others have been characterizing. My problem with academia is that it purports to be leftist and political when it is quite often more likely status quo and apolitical.

Thus when a genuine leftist appears in academia they tend to struggle. Genuine leftists don't get called out for being sexists by the humanities. Instead, they get thrown out of universities as was the case with respected scholars like David Graeber and Norman Finkelstein. If what you are saying is true, that leftists took over American universities, scholars like these would be celebrated, not thrown out. The fact that these cases rarely get talked about but the small-scale issues with sexism do, demonstrates that the SJW, PC complainers are not genuine in their criticisms of a silencing culture but instead want what I suggested above - the right to have their nonsense equally accepted amongst other ideas.

Of course racism was not 'invented'. It is not just black and white, and it more than likely existed the first time two unlike races set eyes upon each other. My problem is when people try to shoehorn the idea of racism into a situation where it did not exist to draw attention to it. "Hey, there is something topical in the news. How can we put the racist spin on it?"

*snort*

I majored in Political Science from a university with zero ideological diversity. It was leftist in both method and content. I actually went in as a progressive, budding social justice advocate, and I thought I was in heaven because it so strongly reinforced my prior political views.

But about one semester into the experience, I realized that I disagreed with some of the stuff being shoved down my throat. I made the mistake of voicing that concern to a professor, who informed me that I'd better get in line if I wanted to get a decent grade, then warned me about being too vocal about my burgeoning disagreements in other classes.  Needless to say, I graduated a conservative libertarian. And started listening to the racist Beach Boys.

Racism is surely invented, since "race" as a thing is invented. Prejudice in a general sense may not be, but it certainly is learned. Spend some time around toddlers if you disagree.

Well, neither of what we are saying is necessarily in conflict here. But I do think that people have a wildly distorted notion of what constitutes left politics, academics included, which is why so many of them are predominantly centrists who imagine themselves as leftists.

Can this go in the Sandbox at this point?

This is interesting, because my professors really tried to portray themselves as centrist. I'm interested in what you define as left politics. Perhaps Academia and Joe Public are measuring on different spectra?

With all due respect, this post is no more or less relevant/pointless than any other on the front page of this forum. It's also not half as uncivilized. I say keep it here.

And if you disagree with me, you're racist.

Yeah, I think so

It's 100% off-topic. A thread on Al's underwear is more relevant to the "General ON TOPIC Discussions" section of this forum than most of the last page of posts.

And with all due respect, while there are plenty of admirably smart, brilliant, and insightful people here, this is NOT the place I would ever go to read ruminations on politics, or race theory or criticism, and so on.

Thanks.

Make no mistake, I have strong opinions and beliefs on any and all things unrelated to the Beach Boys. I think there's a pretty short half-life to how far a discussion can stay interesting concerning the original article that started this thread, but I went with it as long as it still included some tangent related to the Beach Boys.

I would agree, were there anything remotely interesting going on relevant to the Beach Boys on that page.  Same 10 on-topic but lame threads. Frankly, this thread is the only reason I've visited here as of late. Now back to your inane banter about mike v. brian, why C50 ended, and the the books with their bylines that neither of them wrote.

What a nice fellow.

Take an inventory of the last 3 pages of any post on the Gen. Discussion thread and tell me they're any more relevant to the Beach Boys than this one.  I'm a decent fellow; I simply have a distaste for over-moderated (or selectively moderated) forums.

You know, some of us are trying to make this place better. If you want it to be a better board, make it one.  And the book discussion IS on topic, as both of them are recently released...that and the tours are the most pertinent topics as of now.

Conversations *you* enjoy or find interesting do not equate to "On Topic".

The "Sandbox" forum here seems to be a perfect fit for the scenario that went down in this thread.

It's not my job to defend the other posts or threads on this board. If you don't like them, then don't post. If you rarely post, and most of your few posts over the course of six months are of a largely off-topic nature, that tells me a few things. One, *you* apparently don't like the board, or at least anything being discussed on the board. Two, you have a KAJILLION places on the internet to discuss race, politics, etc.

There are plenty of interesting topics in the main forum. Brian's book. Mike's book. Brian's current tour.

Yes, I find the setlist from Brian's Sacramento show, even if it's the same freaking setlist from the last month of shows, more on-topic than a discussion of "how inherently liberal a college education is."

If you actually like the Beach Boys and like discussions concerning the band, and don't like any of the available threads on the board, how about *starting* one yourself?

I'll let CSM speak for himself, but I assume he's talking about the difference between what most Americans consider leftist (by which they generally mean something akin to the Democratic party) and the rest of the world (whose center to center-right parties are more like our mainstream Democrats). Basically, because we only have two parties that anyone pays attention to, and because we're suckers for the myth of two opposing teams, we think we have one rightist, conservative, Republican party and one leftist, liberal/progressive, Democratic party. Our perspective is out of whack from the rest of the world's.

On-topic != engaging, and I suppose if I were running the shop I'd give deference to the latter. I've never subscribed to the MUST BE ON TOPIC purist mindset, and this thread has remained pretty intellectual and civilized-- more so, I'd argue, than the majority of on-topic threads here. But alas, I'm not running the shop, so carry on.

I don't think this thread makes this a better board, per se, but I also don't think this hurts it at all.  The topic is quite relevant: Beach Boys era music viewed in a historical/cultural context. If it's the off-topic side-conversations that make this thread sandbox worthy, I suggest you maintain consistency by moving every other thread with side conversations here, too.  I make this a better board by posting well-thought, civilized comments on threads that interest me.  Should I ever have the slightest interest in the three topics that dominate here (C50 demise, Smile track order and tours), I suppose I'll chime in there.

The off-topic side conversation has become the *main* conversation in this thread, which is why it was moved. Doesn't mean that all topics with side conversations get moved. And I've been consistent in moving political/racial stuff off of the main board, because many of us do not come here to read that stuff.

I can't speak for the folks running the board, but I don't necessarily take a thread being moved to the Sandbox as an implication that it's a bad conversation, or lacking civility, etc. Most of the stuff in the Sandbox probably is inane, sometimes civil and polite but inane. But the main point is that it's off-topic. The two choices typically on a moderated board would be to either tell people to stop posting the off-topic content, or move the thread.

A few folks here seem to dig the conversation, so I see moving it as the better option compared to telling people to stop posting.

Anything remotely invoking politics pretty quickly goes off the rails. I suppose I feel that if someone is making an on-topic point I disagree with, then I have to suck it up. But my tolerance for reading things I find disagreeable or lamentable that are also completely off-topic is quite low. That's where the "Sandbox" becomes the perfect place in my opinion.

I don't agree with the apparent characterization that some have made that the preceding page or so of off-topic discussion of race and politics is quite so enlightened. But in the Sandbox where political threads are acceptable, what *I* think of such a discussion doesn't matter. But again, just because someone thinks an off-topic discussion is intellectual or substantive enough to trump the most basic on-topic/off-topic guidelines of the board, it doesn't mean others find it as substantive.

In short, I can't go off-topic in the "On Topic" forum just because I think what I'm posting is brilliant and important.

If there were no "Sandbox" section to this board, I wouldn't even be having this conversation. Just bringing the hammer down and shutting a conversation down is something I would imagine nobody wants. But this board has a section for precisely the direction this thread took. The same posters can contribute and the same discussion can continue. The only difference is the background color in this section is different. Plus, I believe, posts here don't count toward your total post count.

Sandbox has nothing to do with inappropriateness, but as HeyJude said, it's just about subject matter. Not BBs related for an extended period of time = Sandbox.

Frankly I also agree that there's virtually nothing interesting going on more often than not in the BBs forum--most topics have simply been beaten to death--and so I think the Sandbox is (or can be) the best place on the whole damn board. But that said, the threads I may like here that deal with cooking, politics, or whatever else just don't belong in the main forum (unless they adhere to the BBs more directly).

I'm perfectly fine with the thread going to the sandbox. I do apologize for taking part in shifting the conversation away from the Beach Boys but when I do these kinds of things it is with the confidence that the mods will either shift the discussion to the sandbox or at least, excise the non-Beach Boys related elements to the sandbox.

Yes, that's what I mean, and, as Chomsky suggests, the intellectual elite in many ways perpetuate that distortion. I might also add that this distortion is spreading beyond the United States.

I understand what you're saying, CSM, but I also think "left" and "right" are relative to the center and, unfortunately, the center has been moving further right since the 80s, both in the US and in Europe, thus what used to be center is now left.
It's certainly the case that from a global perspective, the American left is pretty far right, especially when it comes to foreign policy and economics.

I have never said, let alone screeched, "check your privilege," and yet people have used "PC" and "SJW" multiple times as ways to try to silence me.  Calling something "PC" or calling someone an "SJW" is every bit as much an attempt at silencing as calling someone racist. In some circles, more so. And calling someone "PC" or "SJW" is often a reaction, such as in this thread, when people are confronted with an uncomfortable argument. I mean, that's EXACTLY what happened in this thread.

Yes, at the level of the political establishment, the centre has moved further to the right all over. However, at the popular level, I believe that there is still a great deal of old-school left sentiment out there and consequently I still see a value in retaining a sense of the old political spectrum.

America is strange politically....

I hope you're right. I mean, correct.

Haha. Well, I hope I'm the latter and certainly not the former!

:lol


FYI, for the record, I'm as far left as you can imagine, in most areas. Big surprise, huh? :D

Don't doubt my imagination. 😀

Joe Thomas producing your album?

No, he's busy getting new nylon guitar strings.

Sadly, the only thing in current Europe that could remotely recall the traditional "left" is the extremely high taxation. Everything else is going exactly like in America, or even worse: pauperisation of most of the the population, de facto return of slavery, destruction of any semblance of "welfare", democracy reduced to a very unfunny joke, widespread unchecked corruption, wholesale lies by all the media, curbing of dissenting voices, wanton annihilation of the environment.
And the would-be "intellectuals" who in such a situation, instead of addressing real problems, keep toying with absurdities such as Pet Sounds being (albeit unwittlingly) racist, are (wittingly) instrumental in mantaining this abominable status quo.
But of course, targeting Pet Sounds is so much easier and, above all, safer.

My (Final) Solution

Uhh....what?

Yes that decade had institutional racism as part of it. Many things were not as involved then as they are now.   That is inarguable.

The question is… Does that mean that every single piece of art from that entire decade needs to be saddled with a tangentially racist label? Once it's agreed that this decade was part of an outdated world where many unfair things happened and were the "norm",  I'm trying to understand if you're advocating that all bands from this era, unless their sole purpose was to make music about progressive politics, need to be fingered in some negative way?   And whether or not you understand that even if you won't qualify this line of thinking as "fingering", that many people will take that notion and run with it, in a way that paints The BBs as essentially "racist", outdated, and to be shunned for being too "something".

Does this mean that if one is not able to find a "suitable" amount of songs by The Zombies, The Moon, and every band on the Rhino Nuggets box set that are politically progressive, that one should casually use the term "racist" and those band names in the same sentence/breath without feeling awkward about it? Again, in a conversation, once you realize you're *not* arguing with somebody about the decade having systematic problems that stretched far and wide (I agree with that!), why isn't the conversation about the decade in general, as opposed to trying to hang a label on a specific band?  Unless said band went out of its way to do/say some really bad stuff, of course, in which case that would be warranted.  

Because like I said, shouldn't that label apply to essentially every band, tv show, movie of the time?  Even the progressive ones might not be considered progressive enough.   Every single thing was a product of its time. There is no escaping that because nobody had time travel.  

I just don't like that it feels as though there is some expectation that is being applied retroactively.  I certainly won't deny that there are plenty of awkward lyrical moments in the band's catalog which reflect the fact that those things were largely not considered problematic at the time.  At a certain point, this line of thinking becomes toxic and promotes (however inadvertently) division and shunning of people who truly don't deserve it.

Thank you.

Now I can voice my opinion on this topic.

Might be a repeat of what I already posted in this thread earlier, but to try to paint the Beach Boys, Beatles, Stones, etc into this kind of sociological picture 50 years after the fact is a complete joke, and I find it borderline offensive both as a musician and as someone who studies and respects history, especially the notion of historical context.

If people want to put a damn asterisk next to these great artists and the work they created which continues to inspire all generations up to young fans and musicians not even born when George Harrison or Carl Wilson passed away, and say "yeah, but...institutional racism!!! Sexism!!! whatever -ism was in place when the music was created...". It's ridiculous.

Above that, what is the desired result here? Should Messrs. McCartney, Wilson, Townshend, Jagger, etc get down on their hands and knees and apologize for being born and making music in the era they did? Would that absolve them of the "original sin" that seems to be getting tagged to the art they created decades after the fact?

I seriously don't get it. I really don't.

Maybe the real question to those trying to promote and argue these issues and tag this music and the artists to a racist society, what recommendations would they give the "kids of today" for listening in terms of legacy artists who are pure of mind and free of guilt without attaching that asterisk?

I couldn't agree more.  This was one of the silliest articles on music I've ever read.  It's just trying to stir the race pot for no reason whatsoever at a time when tensions in this country are already pretty high.

Agreed with you both. Of all the amazing things this music has brought us I don't see why it's necessary to bring race into it - especially in a time where race is being used to boost media ratings (probably much in the way this article was made for click bait) and in return it's helping make tensions rise.

There are enough chaotic topics directly related to the Beach Boys, no point in making up topics to argue about.

It's not necessary, but I think the topic (not just about the BBs, but race and racism's impacts on musicians and listeners over time, as well as musicians' [i think mostly positive] impact on racism and race relations) is interesting and valid, at least in the Sandbox, for anyone interested in calmly/respectfully discussing it. I think that especially is true for people with different views on the subject. I like talking to KDS and a few others who tend to have somewhat different ideas than I have. I find it helpful. But I'd say anyone jumping in purely to pile on some or other dissenter with the force of some perceived righteous perfection (of any persuasion), that's neither interesting nor productive.

Oh and if I hadn't said it earlier, I entirely agree that holding figures of the past to modern standards is absurd. (I also think that shows that objective morality isn't real. And that hero worship or lionization of historical figures is silly. But those are 2 different sandboxers!)

I think that if people remove their guilty imaginings from the topic, they will find it's not bothersome in the least. When one analyses any art form, the context of the culture, economics, politics, etc of the time and place may come into it. None of you mind a "California" or a "baby boom" or "middle class suburban" or "postwar" or an "American" or "1960s" or "Vietnam" or "drug culture" contextual analysis of Beach Boys music, do you? Would you be up-in-arms about how "unfair" it is to analyze Beach Boys music or its influences or impact in the light of these aspects of their surroundings? Discussing Beach Boys music in light of the institutional racism of their surroundings is no less valid.

You are inferring a "guilt by association" that isn't implied.
I think you are misunderstanding what people are saying. Read again the statements that you yourself wrote that students are saying and being taught. They do not ascribe the things you seem to think they ascribe. That sounds like you imposing your defensiveness.

I agree with this, as well. While I don't believe in holding historical figures to modern standards, neither do I think we need to shy away from the gap between the two. It can be dispassionately done. I suspect--admitting this is speculation--that sometimes it makes some people who were there then or who otherwise relate (e.g. white straight suburban guys who can imagine themselves in the BBs' shoes) feel uncomfortable and get defensive when there isn't actually anyone on the offensive.

But most of the conclusions being made regarding this discussion are intellectually irresponsible.  To come to the conclusion that The Beach Boys' music is deeply rooted in institutional racism solely because the music came from a period of intense racial turmoil in America is not sound reasoning.  We can successfully tie the music to all of the factors you mention ("California" or a "baby boom" or "middle class suburban" or "postwar" or an "American" or "1960s" or "Vietnam" or "drug culture") because those characteristics comes through in the music very clearly.  What does NOT come through in the music is any reference of say, "keeping America white" or "celebrating segregation" or the naivete that the world is perfect as it is and nothing should change.  None of those messages comes through even remotely.  What does come through, as another poster mentioned, is the idea of love and togetherness among people.  That message is most definitely there in the music.  It may not be a radical enough statement for people in 2017 want to accept but it was their statement, nevertheless.

Agreed completely.

Now what I want to know is what would The BBs had to have done back in the '60s for someone claiming  that The Beach Boys' music is deeply rooted in institutional racism to come to a *different* conclusion other than confidently making such as statement? If Mike Love had been a progressive race expert, and *every* 1960s Beach Boys song had a lyrical subtext about how institutional racism was a problem that needed to be overcome, would that then give the band a pass? But nothing short of that would give them a pass? Where is that line drawn, and who gets to draw it?

I think it's pretty easy to tie aspects of The Beach Boys music and career arc to the institutional racism of the time.  And I think their early music comes across as "white" just as much as it comes across as "California". I think the "keep America white," etc aspect of your post is what your defenses are hearing, not what others are saying.

Nothing. It's not a personal indictment. Again, that's what you're hearing but it's not what's being said.

My guess is that they would have had to have written a song specifically about the subject or at the very least very clearly been quoted denouncing the events of the period.  Anything less would not change any 2017 spectator's views because the golden rule appears to be if you don't voice your views you are automatically grouped with the other group that is doing the harm--without question.

Technically, the one song that comes to mind that even remotely comes close is "Student Demonstration Time."  

America was stunned on May 4, 1970
When rally turned to riot up at Kent State University
They said the students scared the Guard
Though the troops were battle dressed
Four martyrs earned a new degree
The Bachelor of Bullets
I know we're all fed up with useless wars and racial strife
But next time there's a riot, well, you best stay out of sight

The song is by no means supporting segregation or being white--especially that lyric in particular.  The song is a criticism of what's happening and comes off as fearful, pinged with sadness.  You can't get anymore of a statement from the band than that.

Please elaborate. 

Emily, I don't want to misunderstand or misconstrue what you are trying to say. Not do I wish to overreact if I have something wrong on my end. If I have it wrong, can you please clarify again what is in fact being said, and how you think one should ideally interpret it?

And by your statement of the word "nothing" in response to my earlier question, I'm just trying to confirm I understand what you're saying: do you mean to say that there's nothing the band could have done short of constantly writing songs about race to avoid the statement "The Beach Boys' music is deeply rooted in institutional racism"? Am I reading that right?

This is a response to Justin, two above.
Some is in that article; some is in this thread. An example: the music industry in the early '60s had a complicated racial structure. There was a lot of money being made by taking songs written and originally performed by black artists that were locally successful and repackaging them with shiny white teen-idols to sell to suburban white kids. A lot of The Beach Boys' early success and institutional support is linked to their shiny suburbanism while delivering r&b grooves to white teenagers. You can read Mike Love talking about hanging around black kids and getting into R&B. But the black writers and original performers of R&B songs made a lot less money than the repackaging with white performers. That's just what was happening at the time. It's not their fault, but it was an aspect of what they were a part of.  The Beach Boys had some unusual talent and grew out of that, but that's what their start was.

A lot of American folk is rooted in the poverty of the depression. One can analyze a folk musician's music in that light without being taken as asserting that the musician was impoverished during the depression. Why can't people read an analysis of music in the light of racism without freaking out that the musician is being called racist?

I wouldn't insert the word "deeply" but otherwise, there's nothing The Beach Boys could have done short of being born in a different time or place to avoid the statement that their music was rooted in institutional racism. If you are born, raised and living within institutional racism, everything you do has roots in institutional racism. That's what's being said, and, "let's look at 'x' aspect of this music in light of that fact." Just like everything produced during the depression can be looked at in light of the depression.

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't argue at all about that, and the fact that there was a structure that perhaps gave the band of white kids a better deal than what the record company might have "tried to pull" had they been black kids instead.

With regards to your question about why people freak out about the interpretation that a musician is being called racist... it's all about how things are framed/context of a person's argument or statement, and how that gets interpreted by many people. While a fair point could easily be made talking about the 1960s and how suburban white kids were more accepting of white musicians as opposed to black ones (and how record companies may have exploited that), it's all too easy for the terminology that the person arguing such a point to begin to veer into something where the band and members are somehow "guilty" of something, when in fact by all accounts they seemed to be good people who did not behave in a racist way. It naturally begins to put some sort of finger-wagging on them, as though the teenaged band was responsible for going to the record company and saying "we don't want to benefit in any way from a record deal that we might be getting because we are white".

I mean... I'm sure there were some forward-thinking people in the industry who might have taken such a stand, and I think that's RAD beyond words. Yet I don't think they are guilty of anything except just being white male kids in the early 1960s, which somehow seems like that fact alone is problematic to some people. I feel someone is gonna write an article throwing Kevin Arnold under the bus next.

And I think anyone who starts to casually throw around the term "racism" and "The BBs" in the same sentence (the current Trump situation excluded from the point I'm making) should absolutely feel a *responsibility* to be very careful with what words are chosen, and to not give any sort of impression that might allow the band to begin having some sort of unfairly negative connotation to modern young people in PC culture. I know we are not publicists or spokespeople for the band, and have no vested personal interest in keeping the band name scandal-free, so to speak... but still, people can latch onto ideas in an overly negative way, and start causing an entire band's music to become unfairly stigmatized. People SHOULD walk on eggshells somewhat to make sure they are not saying stuff that could lead people down such a road, just as many people walk on eggshells (fairly) by choosing their words carefully to avoid saying things that could be misinterpreted as racist/sexist, etc.

Fair is fair. There's plenty of people who have probably begun to feel a toxicty about the brand name (Trump excluded) just because of articles like the Pet Sounds one, and I think that stinks. It's certainly the author's responsibility to not make such implications (unless that's their intention). Yes, readers have their own minds, but again - people are impressionable, and often easily-manipulable. If it becomes "hip" to rag on the band by throwing their name and the term "racism" in the same sentence, it's gonna start happening, and it's just not right. (Of course, the Trump thing is gonna f*** that up big time too).

I think there's a bigger problem with people hearing things that aren't there. But whatever.
Edit - sorry that was rude.
I think that to say that people should essentially not talk about racism because some people get upset is to, essentially, say, "let's let racism persist because it upsets people to counter it" because I think that many people react negatively to anyone ever saying anything about racism (other than saying it's not a problem.)
I'm not going to edit myself pointing out racism and misogyny because some people are unable to grapple with reality.

But you know, that cuts both ways, right? With regards to some people hearing/interpreting some things as sexist/racist, when in fact that's not always the case either.

How does one not "freak out" when the words you choose literally imply that position:


This is an example of 2+2=5.  

The music itself could not have been "rooted" in institutional racism because the music was rooted in Brian's garage, based on The Four Freshman harmonies and Chuck Berry rhythms.  That is a literal explanation of where the music was born from.  What you are trying to blend into the discussion is something else entirely.  

By this logic, all the music from Motown and Stax was also rooted in institutional racism.*


*Unless, that doesn't count because only whites were the aggressors of institutional racism because of their privilege.  Another example of irresponsible over-generalizing.

I edited above before I saw this. I think this is a false equivalence. I think that when most people talk about racism and misogyny, they are talking about cultural functions, unless they are talking about specific outright examples. Not always- and in that case they should be called out and that's fine. The problem is that some people can't grapple, most often I guess for psychological reasons, with the fact that those things are existing cultural functions, so they react all touchy.

Yes, all the music from Motown and Stax was rooted in institutional racism. The rest of your post: no.

Emily, I think we all understand what you are saying, but what are we supposed to conclude in regards to the institutional racism that existed then and still exists today in some forms?  

But like I said... I'm not denying that the 1960s were a time when it benefited bands to be white when marketed to suburban young white kids, and that black performers probably got shafted in untold ways that their white counterparts didn't. I'm NOT one of those people who denies those things... so I would counter and say that I *can* in fact grapple with the idea that there was institutional stuff going on which benefited the band.

Have I said something which makes you think I don't believe that institutional racism was/is a thing? I just wanna know what people like myself have to prove to make it known that we think racism and institutional racism sucks, and that we truly want it to go the way of the dodo. I mean, not everyone wants that, but I certainly do!

Myself, I just happen to think that the band was really an outlet for escapism and everyday carefree topics - yet of course Brian did begin to weave socially conscious lyrics, such as on SMiLE, and Mike's clunky yet well intended Student Demonstration Time - so I don't really know what the point you are tying to make is. Nor do I really understand what authors like the Pet Sounds article guy were trying to say either. I tend to think that article is probably part of a concerted effort to knock the band down a few pegs from being as revered as they are.

If I confidently say "the band surely inadvertently benefited from whatever ways that they - and other such all-white groups of the time - didn't have to deal with prejudice, racist record executives, and how the industry probably was skewed to benefit white folks, etc"... all things I truly believe... and leave it at that, does that make my views align with yours? Or do you believe I am still missing something, and/or not grappling fully with a particular concept?

Can I offer a thought that others may or may not find useful (or even correct)? I can!? Oh good!

I think the word "racism" in "institutional racism" might trip people up with respect to handling the idea. We usually use the term for individual and often conscious, nasty beliefs and behavior. It is despicable and I don't think anyone is arguing that.

When I think of institutional racism, I think of it apart from individuals' conscious beliefs and actions, and more a subconscious racial environment (which does benefit or harm some groups based on race). It isn't finger-pointing, prosecuting, reparations-demanding, but just trying to step out of ourselves to see either an objective or at least a different subjective reality with respect to race. So thinking of the BBs or anyone in the context of institutional racism isn't calling the BBs racist: it's just an interesting examination.

I think the two uses of "racism" are very different and warrant different responses. Maybe we'd be better off if there were another term for institutional racism.

Or maybe my approach is stupid and you're glad this post ends ... NOW!!

There isn't a simple answer to this. I wouldn't say that there's any one thing that people are supposed to conclude. Simply, people should think about it and how it affects things and try in their small space to correct for it.

You don't have to prove anything. Just don't get defensive when people talk about racism. Don't assume they are calling. You or your band racist. And don't tell them they shouldn't talk about racism because some people don't like it when people talk about racism.

Yay. Good approach.

Like I said, it's all about context, the manner in which something is brought up, and interpretation. The fact of the matter is that I'm certain there are plenty of people who (again, Trump aside) have probably concluded that the band is uncool (in a "this is sorta racist and culturally unacceptable" sort of way) as a result of articles like the Pet Sounds article. And again, it pains me to think about how much further this line of thinking will go as a result of Mike Edward Scissorhands Love.

Just please for a moment consider the fact that authors who make such accusations should think about readers walking away with that type of impression, and should choose their words carefully to avoid such (unless of course that's their goal, in which case I think their goal sucks). Kind of how I try to choose my words carefully to avoid using the term "girl" in a previous thread with you in discussing a teenaged female (even though I mean nothing bad by it, I completely agree that it's antiquated, and can be interpreted in a pejorative way, so I happily and willingly have tried to dial it out of my vocabulary). People have a responsibility, especially in today's day and age, where people often communicate on the internet without face-to-face contact (and thus, without the benefit of facial expressions to better understand what someone might truly mean from their statement), to not be needlessly divisive about sensitive topics. They can still be discussed, of course. It's why I personally often text with emojis, and don't often end texts with a period. Not asking you, the author of the Pet Sounds article, or anyone to throw "happy" emojis into a discussion of institutional racism, just making an analogy that there are ways and things that can be said that better help the conversation be productive, as opposed to the opposite.

"Racism" is an UGLY term, and it's VERY easy for people to latch onto it and throw that label undeservedly onto things like tying it somehow to Pet Sounds. People have a responsibility to not be inciting and creating unfair labels for others. And no, I am NOT in any way saying that people should be afraid of discussing race, privilege, or how to fix societal problems. I too want to be solution-minded. I'm just saying that there are things that people can do/say, like cushioning a potentially volatile statement with a disclaimer, that can *help* the reader not feel attacked (or feel their favorite band is being attacked) in a needless, unfair way.

But the author didn't make that accusation. The fault is on the part of the stupid "if you're talking about racism you're being mean or reprssive or in some way doing something horrible!" zeitgeist. And to silence people talking about racism because some people are trying to silence people talking about racism is to be one of the people trying to silence people talking about racism.

I very much figured that you might say "it's the fault of the reader", but *part* of it has to be on the author too. Communication is a two-way street. I don't condone silencing, just being more concerned about trying to minimize misinterpretation, if in fact that is what is happening.

That's a nice platitude, but sometimes one person is in the wrong and the other is in the right.

Correct but only when racism is manipulated into the conversation as it is in this discussion.



These are very patronizing things to say.  

In the same vein:  don't assume people who question you are trying to "edit/silence" you.  It's a shame that discourse is labeled now as an act of aggression or intimidation.  

I agree with the root of your position but I take issue with your conclusions.  I wish you dialed down on the hyperbole and took a more sensitive approach to such a sensitive topic.  

Saying now that the Beach Boys music and all of Motown, Stax (and basically all music from this and any period before or following) is rooted in institutional racism is a statement that is just downright dishonest and once again, intellectually irresponsible.  Anyone who proudly makes those statements is most likely not looking for a discussion.  So then, that's that.

In another thread, when we were having a back-and-forth convo about the teenaged lady who protested Hillary, I consistently referred to her as a "young lady" or something to that effect, but one time I typed quickly without thinking and referred to her a "girl". I would hope that out of the many (every-single-time-but-once) that I had NOT called her "girl" you would have known that I didn't mean anything bad/pejorative by the fact that the archaic "girl" terminology stupidly slipped out just once, but you were very quick to pounce on it and say "don't call her a girl", as though suddenly I must mean it in a pejorative way when it probably should have been obvious that I didn't. So that's as much my fault for saying that word as it might be considered your fault for interpreting that I actually meant something bad from the term (based on my history of not using it before at all in that convo). Ultimately it's on me for typing it, I get that. Still, things are in the eye of the beholder, although I concede it's my responsibility to not use that language - even when I think someone would know I mean nothing bad by it.

It's easy for conversations to devolve when buttons are being pushed, and I just think that there are shades of grey, and ways in which people can converse without being needlessly hostile divisive, and without muzzling the author, but still getting the point across.  The internet has largely ruined our natural ability to communicate as humans face-to-face, and there are things that can be done to counteract that.

Let me ask you a question, CD. On a few occasions, you have asserted, correctly, that Trump has nominated people who have made homophobic statements and that he has mocked a disabled person (I notice that his strong record of misogynistic statements are less frequently raised). There are places on the internet where your statements would be flatly denied and would raise outrage. Would you be wrong to have made them?

Sorry. This is irritating me and I'm getting rude.
Deleted this comment.

Deleted

Trump is a giant piece of sh*t, and his misogynistic statements horrify me as well (please don't for a moment think that they don't). If I have harped more on about mocking disabled people, it's probably because while some people defending him can perhaps try to "squirm" out of calling him trash for misogyny (saying that it's only a mere "interpretation"), there is NO way that anyone with their right mind can see him making fun of a disabled person's spasms and not outright puke. It's completely fucking indefensible.  I am just as disgusted with his treatment towards women, how Bannon calls lesbians "dikes", etc etc. Trust me, I have no shortage of outrage for how he talks about women.

Bottom line - you can't make fun of disabled people -blatantly on TV as a candidate - and then not apologize for it and still be considered not a piece of sh*t in my book. Ditto for Bannon. Ditto for Trump's "p*ssy" comment, etc etc etc.

So no, of course, I would not be wrong to have made the comments that I believe Trump is a giant ass.

So if you are right and they are wrong and they are only attacking your statements because they don't square with their socio-political sensitivities, you shouldn't be expected to refrain from making those statements?

Side note: The ONLY reason I referenced her race is because she in all probability was particularly outraged at the "superpredator" comment as a result of her community being unfairly targeted due to race. I believe it was relevant to the point I was trying to make, just as you reference race/gender when you feel it is relevant to the point you are trying to make. I know plenty of folks of color who were also outraged about this specific "superpredator" issue, most specifically due to their experiences. Her race was likely a big part of why she was there, why she or people she knows may have been affected, etc.

For you to tell me "don't use that terminology" implies that you think that is a bad/pejorative way of my speaking about someone that is needlessly belittling in some way (or that it could be interpreted that way). Either way, you were and are right - it was a stupid word to use. It's understandable you had some negative reaction to it - even if you knew, or I would hope you would have known - that I meant nothing bad by using it. It bugged the sh*t out of you. And I don't fault you for that at all. But there could have been (and was) a better way to have phrased it.

I'm not being defensive about having used it - I think you were fine to point it out - but I don't get how you don't see the flipside of how in other incidents, people can talk in ways that are also problematic in their potential interpretation.

Anyway, the analogy and point being, there are ways in which things - like systemic racism - can be talked about without being as divisive as some people (however inadvertently) seem to be when talking about this band. Even saying something as simple as the sentence "Let me preface this statement by saying that I don't believe Brian Wilson has a racist bone in his body" in a discussion about the band and institutional racism in the 60s could probably help diffuse things.

I'm not saying nobody can write about institutional racism in the 60s and The BBs, just that the author should tread carefully and responsibly in such as topic. That's all.

I'm talking about something very clear cut and simple - Trump literally just months ago, on national TV, uses specific words, making specific mocking gestures... things that are NOT subject to interpretation, unless the person is truly naive and believes Trump when he claimed he wasn't mocking a disabled person, etc.

This is completely different than a complex issue which we are discussing, with all sorts of shades of grey, involving a group of numerous different individuals, society at large, etc etc. No relation whatsoever. Again, I am not calling for muzzling, just perhaps a better choice of words, more disclaimers, more giving of sh*ts to NOT just put this ALL on the reader, but for the writer to feel a personal responsibility to not have the reader walk away thinking the band should be knocked down several pegs in terms of respect, etc.

It's not hard. Somebody just has to give a f*** about it, that's all. If actually correcting some ills in society is the goal, a better tack might be to do things to reach out and gain more allies, as opposed to pushing people away who probably largely agree with 90% of the overall idea.

I didn't think you had a bad intent or were using the term or any term pejoratively. I assumed that you do not have the same concerns that I do about the impact of putting focus on the age, sex or color of a speaker when the speaker's statements can stand on their own.
I think that bending over backward to humor people who twist things out of context in order to shut down important topics that they find threatening is not a good idea. I think it plays into their agenda, which is not an agenda I support.

I disagree. I think it's perfectly clear that the author of this article did not say that The Beach Boys were, as people, racists. That's every bit as clear to me as it is to you that Trump mocked that guy. And the people who believe Trump's dumb explanation are no more wrong than the people claiming this article called The Beach Boys racist.

It does not call them racists directly, but IMO it plants the seeds of the band being a somewhat toxic thing to like in today's PC culture, which I think sucks. A not insignificant number of impressionable young people are more than likely gonna get that impression, whether you think that is fair (or "on them"), or not.

Do you not find it the least bit ironic that people who enjoy the band's music from the '60s, and enjoy it for just the deep feelings of love that it brings to them, and feel the music stands on its own (aside from the civil unrest that was going on concurrently when it was written/recorded) also do not wish to place such as heavy emphasis on continually reaching to find ways to tie in the band with those very same things - especially those who are NOT in denial about institutional racism being a thing?

Bottom line: the band benefited from being white during that era. No denying that. They also benefited from not all having Mike Love's hairline. And lots of other things. No need in either case (your example above, or mine in this response) to needlessly rope in race, etc. again and again and again, and frankly I don't even know what there is to argue about when I think (?) we seemingly agree on the main crux of this.  :)

Let me bring this back for a moment. Trump's made dozens of absolutely blatantly misogynist comments. As far as I know, he did the one thing about disability. But you focus on the disability because you think it will sell better with your audience. Does not talking about the misogyny help deal with misogyny, or does it just help you defend against "picking on Trump" attacks?
You and I have different agendas. My agenda does not include letting things like misogyny and racism slide because the people I'm talking to might miss some other point, or might irrationally hold it against The Beach Boys, or might be like the guy on that other thread who supports things because he likes to see other people upset. Usually, if this sort of topic comes up, the point about racism or misogyny is my agenda.

I don't think it's continual or heavy emphasis. I think it's pretty rare. I think Brian Wilson enjoys a stellar reputation as a good guy. I think Mike Love's reputation is more hotly disputed. I think the Beach Bous reputation is mainly that of very safe and cute light '60s pop, all of which is associated with a time when civil rights was a contested issue and I think almost nobody thinks of the Beach Bous are particularly involved with that one way or another. A subset of people think Brian Wilson is a soulful genius who is way beyond the early Beach Boys stuff Anne a smaller subset of people think The Beach Boys are broadly an underrated band who went on to do significant interesting work beyond the early hits, Pet Sounds and Smile and I think this article had almost no impact on the Beach Boys' reputation.

Please know: being extremely against Trump's racism and misogyny IS my agenda too. I have stated my disgust with the his "grab them" comment, and in real life, I talk about my disgust of his misogyny and racism frequently. When it comes to strangers on a message board, I happen to think that it's sometimes easiest to shut someone down from defending the man by picking *the* most ridiculously indefensible things he has said - things that even racist or misogynist people can't defend. How does it "help" my (our, actually) causes of being anti-racism and anti-misogyny by sometimes focusing instead on homophobia and mocking disabled folks? Well indirectly I would hope it does, by simply chipping away and de-legitimizing him as being any sort of respectable human being. This doesn't need to be a contest!  I mean if we go down that route, then we both could call foul about how many other things that both you and I haven't yet called him out on. This seems like a needless argument.

If we are going to judge which is worse - mocking disabled people or being a horrifying sexist pig, I think they are all off-the-charts bad, and the frequency in which he does those things probably reflects how often he interacts with those groups. He's a narcissist who will find a way to both use and put down anyone who he can. Perhaps yes, he is more of a sexist pig than a disabled person mocker. I'm often picking on what I think are Trump's weak spots in an argument with strangers - areas in which theoretically there's no way that *anyone* can weasel out of saying that he acts indefensibly. I have even seen women online defending the "grab them" comment by letting it slide as "locker room talk" which is a despicable, tragic, and ridiculous way for them to perceive things. Me, I just happen to find it hilarious to see someone sit back and defend mocking disabled folks, or Bannon's "dikes" comment (or just stop responding because they know they can't defend those things), so perhaps that makes for more entertaining bait in an argument. I care no less about his abhorrent views on women, trust me.

Don't think for one moment that his views on women/race are not a priority to me - that's your projection based on how you are interpreting my argument tactics on a message board. We are absolutely allies on this.

Well, one isolated article may not have an impact, but if that goes viral, becomes a pattern, and as bonnevillemariner pointed out in the Trump inauguration thread, he has witnessed students getting some potentially twisted views about the band - that may be problematic. Most especially nowadays that Mike is associating with the orange imbecile, articles like the Pet Sounds one will doubtlessly be used by some researchers to further negatively skew peoples' views of the brand, especially if they are motivated by the current situation. That's gonna continue to happen I think, sadly.

No, I have not done some scholarly study where I go and interview the kids which he was speaking about to get soundbites on how they view the band. I just know how things can sometimes get blown out of proportion and distorted (especially in the internet world), and how repeatedly seeing any brand name associated with the term racism can be potentially damaging in and of itself. Same way in which seeing the terms "Hillary" and "crooked" over and over again can drill that thought into peoples' heads, so can a similar thing happen, to a certain degree, with this band and racism.

There is no magic solution. I advocate that authors should choose their words perhaps a bit more carefully (something I myself adhere to - and not by duress, but because I think it's the right thing to do), and if that's not a satisfactory solution to you, then I don't know what will be. I don't want anyone to feel muzzled, just a responsibility to not nudge (even if inadvertently) misguided notions into taking hold in the culture.

I just think there's very little to discuss with regards to this band in the 1960s and institutional racism. Certainly not enough for an author to write a thesis/dissertation about.

You read my comment wrong. I'm just pointing out that you are editing what you are saying based on your audience - perhaps wise - but if I were to edit what I was saying for the audience, I wouldn't be able to say what I want to say, in some cases.
I do think it's a shame if some people think that a Trump association applies to ALL Beach Boys. I also think it's a shame that any Beach Boys music will go unheard because of the association with Trump. We are in agreement there. That will get more attention than that article, in any case.
I hope some trend of rewriting The Beach Boys' history does not come out of this. If it does I will be unhappy and will acknowledge that you had a point here that I missed.  But I don't anticipate it.

Let's hope for the best. What is seemingly about the get unleashed in terms of the brand name is toxic on an unheard level, and I shudder to think what will happen next.

There. We agree!

I think it's a shame some people are dumb enough to avoid listening to an artist just because of said artist's supposed political views. To be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on.

Well, about 62 million people certified themselves as complete morons in November. So there are a lot of dumb people out there.

Yup, a lot. According to my sources there are even 3 million more  ::)

Would you listen to an artist who performed at the inauguration of David Duke?  Or Adolf Hitler? Just curious if those examples would make you change your opinion.

If the music's good, yes. Definitely.

I appreciate your honesty about that. That's where you and I differ, because it would unfortunately pollute the music too much for me for those people.  How about if it was the inauguration of a person who had sexually molested several close members of your family, and thus messed up their lives, but they were not able to have been prosecuted for it due to statute of limitations? Would the fact that it is personal change your way of thinking?  

I'm just throwing an extreme example out there to see if there's any possible way that you could be so repulsed by someone that you would finally be put off to their art, even if the art was great.  It is an honest question.   I tend to assume that everyone has a line they would draw at some point.

Again, I would definitely listen to the music if it is good. I would probably hate the elected person more than I've ever hated anybody, but the artist who would perform for said person would be a different person, and there wouldn't be anything personal between this artist and me. Actually I wouldn't even be interested in the artist as a person - I would be interested in the artist as, well, an artist. The music matters, the person doesn't. Let's go a bit further: I assume many people would draw a line there because it would be too much to withstand, but I would probably listen to the elected person/molester's own music if it was worthwhile, simply out of curiosity. After having illegally downloaded it, of course.

That illegally download part is key. I wouldn't give money to a supporter of Trump if I could help it. I don't give money to Roman Polanski. I didn't buy OJ Simpson's book. I look at what mutual funds invest in before I invest in the fund. I don't shop at Hobby Lobby or Walmart.
And I don't think I'm very unusual in these choices. I don't buy Ted Nugent and I also tend to ignore his existence as much as possible - same for Chuck Norris. There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.

I guess George Soros and Saudi Arabia are ok in your book then. Which seems a bit contradictory, considering some of your previous political statements.

If they don't want to find out about an artist's work simply because they saw said artist on TV for five minutes during the inauguration of a president they didn't vote for and automatically concluded that the artist shared the exact same ideas, they are indeed dumb. Actually, it's dumb even if you don't think they share the exact same ideas - because the artist's political stance doesn't necessarily have an impact over the lyrics or the music. Which leads me to what I said previously: "to be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on."

Also, "social responsibility" has nothing to do with that, and it's a poor excuse for an excuse. "Social responsibility" does however have a lot to do with voting and respecting the results of an undisputed election.

It's really not "dumb". It's people's emotions regarding what things disgust them and which don't. I detest having art tainted where it can affect my enjoyment of something. It doesn't always happen, but it does sometimes. I will probably go back to listening to The BBs without thinking about this at some point - I just randomly heard California Girls at a party last night and it brought a big smile to my face, but that doesn't mean I'm going necessarily to be very motivated to actively seek out put on a Mike Love lead on for possibly awhile.

Again - it depends on how much the association disgusts you. If a band you very much liked went and performed for a terrorist organization like the ISIS or HAMAS version of Coachella, or something like that, I venture to guess you'd be hard pressed to find the same level of emotional enjoyment out of the music in quite the same way if you are sickened TO THE CORE by the association.  Especially, if say, your entire family was killed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center. That's an extreme example, but I'm just pointing out that certain things pull at peoples' emotions in very particular ways, and they aren't "wrong" or "dumb" to feel that way.  There's no reason to get insulting.  Honestly... would you tell a person to their face  - a person whose family died in that manner - that they were "dumb" for feeling that way about an artist who played a pro-terrorism event?

I really, truly think if you were, for example, a woman who personally had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by wealthy, "untouchable" people like Trump in a "grab them by the ..." kind of way, that you'd at least have a touch more empathy toward folks who are so repulsed by Trump and repulsed by any artist associating with him.  

Just put yourself in those shoes for a moment and think about it. Where's your empathy in this? Just because you might feel there are lots of liberals who might not have empathy for causes you believe in, doesn't mean you have to sink to anyone's level. We can all be bigger people if we want to be. The country is divided because we call each other "dumb". I'm not perfect with regards to this either, but it's really uncool to generalize an entire group of people in that manner. For example, I don't know how you could claim that it's not more understandable that a Jew whose entire immediate family was killed in the Holocaust would be more put off by Wagner, than say someone of an entirely different culture who has had no such personal awful (however indirect) connection. At its core, the principle of this makes sense, and while it may be unfortunate, it ain't "dumb".

What?
You're contradicting yourself, unless you are intentionally calling yourself dumb. 
It's a shame if you think a vote or respecting the results of an election are the limit of social responsibility.

It's dumb to me, it might not be to you. If you choose not to listen to a band because you disapprove of something they did, instead of judging their work on its merits, feel free to do so. I'll feel free to think it's dumb.

Obviously I'm not in that particular situation, but I'm pretty sure your guess would be wrong. I find it very easy to overlook an artist's political views and focus on the actual music. There are many artists who have voiced political opinions that I most definitely didn't share, and/or said things that I consider outrageous, and/or performed in countries that were or are apartheidistic and violent, and whose music I still enjoy just as much.

First of all, I think (I may be wrong) you're implying that my "dumb" comment applied to people who wouldn't listen to a band because they support someone who killed their relatives. Look at my previous replies and you will see that it isn't the case: I only said it was dumb to avoid listening to an artist just because of different political stances, and I'll stand by that statement. Regarding your question, I wouldn't call them dumb, but I would probably immediately stop talking to them about music, and if they were friends, I would stop seeing them altogether, because I would then know that their judgment on such a trivial thing as music can be overthrown by emotional considerations, and I can't imagine being friends with someone who I can't have a rational conversation with. Which I think also answers your question about empathy. I would definitely feel empathy towards those persons but I would also know they're not who I want to hang out with.

When Wagner died, Hitler wasn't even born yet. Thus, this is -and I'm sure you will understand- a pretty dumb statement to make. On a more humorous note, I personally know a few jewish people who drive BMWs and it doesn't seem to bother them. For the reasons stated above, that's why they're my friends.

You weren't put off by that when you supported Hillary Clinton.

How so?

My point was that "I have a stronger sense of social responsibility" doesn't mean "I let my judgment be affected by emotions more than the average person". Just because a person chooses not to listen to some artists because they (supposedly) voted for another candidate and that displeases said person, it doesn't mean the latter is "socially responsible". It has literally nothing to do with that.

Bottom line is, you may have a better ability to do that than some other people. And good for you. I mean that non-sarcastically, too. I am often able to do that also, but I don't begrudge people who feel differently, and as I mentioned before, it's really both petty and needlessly divisive to call them "dumb". You can stand on your high horse all you want and refuse to back down an inch from claiming this is a perfectly fine blanket label for others, but you have not walked in the shoes of countless people from innumerable backgrounds/life experiences who you label as such. It's simply uncool and not right.

Whether you want to admit it or not, name-calling like that is contributing to the awful divide in this country right now. Snicker at that if you want to, but it's the truth. Not trying to sound sanctimonious, but what the world needs now is less ugly blanket statements about groups of people as a whole. Label people as "misguided" all you want if you feel that way, but don't claim they are literally lacking IQ points.

Fair and understandable point. I don't see you criticizing Emily for labeling 62 million US citizens as "morons", however.

(Also, I'll just add that I am not a US citizen - not that it should change much to what has been said.)

The morons comment isn't great, and certainly isn't helping the situation either. I get why emotions would get people to that point though.

There were two options for president, one vastly preferable in every respect to the other. No ethical conundrum there.

You said you would download for free the music of "the elected person/molester"

Of course it's socially responsible to not fund those who support or do negative things.

Im not sure Im.go so far as to say that Hillary was a "vastly superior" candidate. 

I support Trump, and I'll at least admit he wasn't even the best candidate in his own party.

In your original comment: You're absolutely not referring to the matter of paying or not paying in order to listen to music. You're clearly saying that the people who I think are "dumb", which means those who "avoid listening to an artist just because of said artist's supposed political views", have a "stronger sense of responsibility", meaning that people would be socially irresponsible if they listened to a band after they played the inauguration of a president said people didn't vote for. If it was a matter of money, you wouldn't have said "A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out", because these people could then download the music for free. As usual, you're being intellectually dishonest, by changing what you said. I'm not surprised.  ::)

Emily would greatly benefit from ending every single statement she makes with "...in my opinion".

I prefaced the comment by saying that the "illegally download part is key". I don't consider that an option because I'm not just intellectually honest, I'm also generally honest. You are the one who's being inconsistent.
And why would one need an ellipsis?

In my opinion*, it's usually unnecessary to say "in my opinion" because that's generally obvious to the reader. The phrase is just a waste of space: obviously if a person is making some sort of argument, it's is an opinion. (If it is presented as indisputable fact, a person can always request sources.) And presumably that opinion is the writer's (though I guess it's also funny how many opinions tend to be almost verbatim talking points from media or politicians).

In short, if everyone involved can see it's an opinion, why waste the keystrokes?

*This opinion was adopted from a long-banned poster.

Interesting. Where was I inconsistent?

I would usually agree with you, but Emily is a special case who, as I recall, has a history of presenting things as facts when they're nothing more than opinions (and who doesn't come up with sources when asked for them).

That's false. I have often provided sources when challenged.
You were inconsistent above, in this thread, in your twisting around trying to put down someone who you find irritating.

Yep.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24672.msg599035.html#msg599035 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24672.msg599035.html#msg599035)

It's irritating that those who are supposed staunch proponents of facts choose to use guesstimates instead of using facts when it helps their argument. Just sayin.

I would replace "often" with "rarely" from what I've seen. For instance, I'm still waiting for this one (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20357.msg595348.html#msg595348).

This doesn't make any sense. Twisting around is what I criticized you for (by providing a clear, detailed example). Again, please explain how I was "twisting around". By providing a clear, detailed example.

One occasion in which I didn't find something for YOU does not establish "rarely". I challenge you to count the cases I've been asked for sources on this site and did NOT provide them. I will find twice as many cases in which I DID.
Regarding the Clinton emails, you implied that she had done something that she wasn't even accused of doing. To insist that I provide evidence that she was NOT accused rather than you provide support for saying she WAS accused is absurd and, really, dumb.
You can find myriad articles regarding the deleted emails that discuss the process. If you actually made an attempt to learn about that upon which you comment, it would've been unnecessary for me to google it for you.
Here's one: http://www.abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story%3Fid%3D42389308
How does you criticizing me for something make it "not make sense" that you did it. Indeed, it's quite likely you criticized me for it because you projected your own "intellectual dishonesty".

I obviously wasn't talking only about this. I read this board, you know. I don't even need to provide anything apart from the link rab2591 posted above, as that single page shows just how much you like guesstimating, "twisting around", and how when proved wrong it suddenly "shouldn't be an issue" to you. What's more, the page we're currently on shows that when asked for a "clear, detailed example", you reply with "it's quite likely [...]" and fail to come up with an actual fact. I could see that one coming from miles away, and seeing it tells me I need to stop arguing with you as you can't have a rational discussion.

Also, that link is interesting but doesn't provide much evidence, to be honest. I can instruct my attorney to tell pretty much anything about me, even false information. I was hoping for a much more detailed process explanation. Even if the shortly summarized process is to be believed, the mere fact that the emails weren't actually read shows the process wasn't thorough enough. So my point stands.

The one rab posted above is a pathetic example. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I provide sources. And even when rab actually bothered to calculate the quantity/day it was 6! I post d fewer times there than he and GF posted in other Trump threads! So that whole thing was ridiculous.
So we have a repeat. You are doing what you accuse me of doing. This time, not supporting your false assertion. And now you excuse yourself because you can't. Bye!

This is exactly what we mean by you twisting things around. Firstly, "actually bothered" - yes, I actually bothered to fact check a laughably inconceivable claim you were making because you were trying to prove a point with false information (or as you so eloquently put it after being proven wrong, a "guess"). And the quantity/day being 6? You were claiming there was probably an average of 30 posts made in a one month span about Trump in the Sandbox. When in reality 198 about Trump were made in just one thread in that time....in a thread that you were actively involved in nearly every day. So go ahead, put a small number in your post above in an attempt to make my findings look inconsequential...but the fact is that in regards to the time period we were discussing your claim was off by 168 posts - which is far from a ridiculous finding.

And yes I post in Trump related threads THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE BEACH BOYS. I made it very clear during our very tedious discussion that the Trump talk regarding the inauguration would likely end soon after the inauguration (and inauguration talk was ON TOPIC). But the whining about Trump's policies in the Sandbox could go on for the next four to possibly eight years. So on-topic discussion lasting at best one month vs off-topic discussion lasting 48-96 months? That was the discussion. I'm with Sloop John B, it's obvious you can't have a rational discussion without twisting things around. And now I'll excuse myself. Bye!

Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'probably'? Obviously I was not presenting said "claim" as a calculated fact. It was obviously a guess from the start. An incorrect guess, yes, but a guess - or I wouldn't have used the word 'probably'. Had I gone and found the information and calculated, I would have presented it as a certainty, as did you.
Your whole argument in that thread was predicated on the front page having so so many Trump posts. An average of 6 a day came from that thread, fewer than other threads and fewer by me than you and GF. If you were honest about your concern - that the landing page had too many Trump posts - then your targeting that thread or my posting was incorrect. If you meant to target that thread or my posts, you shouldn't have pretended your concern was with the quantity of Trump appearances on the landing page.
I can only have rational discussions with those who present rational arguments.

Your "guess" was just so laughably bias and wrong that prefacing the word "probably" before your guess doesn't even come close to defending your 168 post error. You claimed a guesstimate when a small amount of research would have gotten you a factual result - and for someone who appears to be so staunch about facts and intellectual honesty I find it highly ironic that you didn't spend a couple minutes trying to ascertain the facts about the core of our discussion. And then when you were proven wrong you flipped the argument around and said that given how popular posting about Trump was here it should be allowed. A perfect example of the twisting around Sloop John B was referring to.


Also, you blatantly refuse to read what I'm writing (or you have a serious comprehension problem). Having to read Trump's name on this forum for conceivably the next 8 years because you and others refuse to find a better suited forum for your whining is something that bothers me. Whereas the month or two in which we talk about the inauguration plans (which directly relate the Beach Boys) will be gone before we know it. I don't want to see Trump's name here on this forum for the next possible 8 years...but when his inauguration directly relates to the band that this forum was made for, then yes I do believe it's logical that we talk about said inauguration. Sorry if the logic of that flies right over your head.

The word is 'biased'. The guess was based on my recent memory at the time, which was that 3-4 days had recently gone by without any posts and that that had happened a few times. I agree, it was very wrong. It doesn't negate the fact that it was a guess and was presented as one, therefore is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about whether I provide sources for things that I assert as fact.
As ever in the last couple of months, I was on a phone and it's awkward to go look something up mid-post. I'm often on a train and my connection comes and goes. If I leave the page, I have to rewrite the whole comment.
Your whole argument is now based on me making an incorrect guess and yet the real numbers still support my point. That, and you pretending you didn't repeatedly go on about the quantity of Trump posts on the landing page.