The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SEZTJDFvpc

Nice to know the band has a special place in his "spin zone."

Bill'O is a sack of sh*t, but seems to have good taste in music.

I hate the Beach Boys now!!!

Bill O'Reilly, whether you agree with his point of view, or not, has earned his stripes as a broadcast journalist...

BU grad, classmate of Howard Stern, student of Marvin Kalb, at Harvard, studied in London; O'Reilly worked in the trenches, from the local TV stations as a consumer reporter, to the liberal Boston Phoenix. 

He was born in 1949; of course he is gives them "the nod."

At some point he said he had seen them 18 times and plans to see the Reunion of the Boys.  18 is likely a conservative number.  I might not agree with his point of view, but, agree with his great taste in music!  ;)

Watching the commentary, Bill is right on this one. The Beach Boys have been doing what they do since the early 60's, and have *survived*. That, in itself, is significant. But the point that hit me was the word "uplifting" which he used to describe their music.

Are there many bands or artists who make music as uplifting as The Beach Boys? And when you get deeper into the history of the band, you realize how much turmoil was going on behind all the great feelings their music was giving their fans...it's an amazing contradiction that music which continues to make people happy and has done that since the early 60's came from that turmoil.

It is still amazing how listeners of all ages can be touched and uplifted by this music, especially those bad days when you need a laugh or a smile and a song like "Wouldn't It Be Nice" pops up on the radio at random.

Don't care for O'Reilly myself (reminds me of Rush Limbarf) but I have renewed respect for him now.  Nice words.

Right on!  Uplifting! Making people happy!  

And, I think a lot of the magic of the music, is in the way that they seemed to identify what people wondered about, and worried over, and somehow put that into the composition or lyrics.  It has given sort of a "safe harbor" that is healthy and positive.  

It is no wonder that there was turmoil.  When you are at the top, everyone (including charlatans) want to be "your friend." But, they are survivors.  I think working with their own bands, has only made them better, and more exacting with the music, causing them to grow tremendously.  They can respect their own life's work.  

Amazing that the music has, like a river, found its' way into movie scores, commercial jingles, art and culture.  They are all part of something quite remarkable, that will surely be validated as this Reunion tour and album pick up steam.  

Uplifting! Yeah, baby!  ;)

O'Reilly's a fan anyway. I've seen a few of his [unbiased] reports on Brian and The Boys through the years on "Current  Affair" and "Inside Edition".

I really don't need Bill O'Reily to salute the Beach Boys.

I like Bill O'Reilly because he might fly off the cuff at any minute and explode into a rant on live television like that excellent Utube clip floating around.  I have never seen anything like that, it was awesome.  Nice to see him promote the Beach Boys a little bit.  Maybe they'll play at the republican national convention in a few months, that would be great!


 ;D


 :o


 >:D


 :lol


 ;)

Can we all just grow up a little? There will be accolades from all over the spectrum.

I'm sitting here with my fingers crossed that Nancy Pelosi doesn't honor them in some way.  That would be HORRIBLE, I don't know what I'd do.  Can you imagine?  Somebody I disagree with, agreeing with me?  THE HORROR

I don't mind O'Reilly, actually. He's kind of amusing sometimes. The key thing to remember, of course, is that he is purely an entertainer, like Jay Leno. He's not a serious political analyst or journalist and he doesn't try to be. His function is to get ratings, not give substance, and that's precisely what he does and he does it well. It's a mistake to really take him seriously. This really isn't the worst thing that could happen to the Beach Boys.

He recently called Willie Nelosn a "creep" for being a marijuana advocate.

At least he's on FoxNews where he belongs... not a lot of serious journalism happening there.

No need to get your undies in bunch about my little opinion about Bill O'Reily. There will be accolades from all over the spectrum (such is the appeal of the BB) but you should accept that opinions will also be all over spectrum. So unless you plan on telling everyone with an opinion to grow up, perhaps taking a bit of a chill on your part is okie dokie.  :)

What the Hell's wrong with Pelosi? I'd rather see her pay tribute to The Boys than that buttwipe Speaker of the House John Boner!

*sigh* Hear we go again....

Hang on, Smile Brian, I got my panties in a twist.........Ronnie is getting vocal again.

Just don't want this thread to turn into a political shouting match with everybody getting nasty.

Some of you guys try to make political statements in here and there is nothing political about some news guy liking The Boys. I could care less what your views are, as I'm sure that you care less about mine. Stay on topic for a change. It's about him giving props to the band, and not is political views.

Hi Mikie;
  Do I know you?  You refer to me as if I do, but I've never heard of you, or if I have, I can't remember.  

What's wrong with Nancy Pelosi?  She's a horrible politician; almost every opinion she has is ass-backwards.

Here's a good one about the health care bill.

"We've got to pass the bill, before we can understand what's in it"

She's a politician who signs bills into law that she's never even read.  That's the epitome of the worst kind of politician; governing and signing into law, things that govern the rest of us, WITHOUT EVEN READING IT.

When was the last time you signed a contract that effected the lives of every person born in the country, WITHOUT EVEN READING IT?

That you would ask what's wrong with her is mind boggling.  Do you support that kind of behavior?  Is that your idea of a good politician?  

FoxNews is the #1 watched news channel.  There's a reason for that.  The republican slant is refreshing from all the mind-numbing nonsense coming from MSNBC or CNN. 

Oh: and BTW, all the Beach Boys are republicans. 

...and here we go!

I agree with this, and it holds true for the majority of what passes for journalism and political analysis in the American media. You can't take 99.9% of it seriously, from O'Reilly to Olbermann, from Matt Lauer to Sean Hannity, from Pelosi to Romney, from the Boston Herald to the New York Times. It's a business, it's entertainment, it's driven by focus groups and likeability ratings, and ultimately it's presented in a way designed to draw larger ratings and therefore more advertising revenue for sponsors who pay to have their company name displayed alongside the "news".

One of the harmful effects of presenting news and politics as a spectator sport for entertainment is that an entertainer like O'Reilly makes a statement on something I'd say most if not all members on this board agree with, and it becomes about Bill O'Reilly the messenger as much as the message, which most of us would express the same way - it's great to see the Beach Boys back together and still making music. Yes! Who cares who said it if we agree with them.

Not really, Brian supported Gore in 2000. Now, back on topic, please.

And then Bush in 04' McCain in 08... that's a republican.  Sorry; it's the truth. 

I didn't take this off topic, but I"m not going to sit by and let people say one side without reflecting the other.  If you don't like it, ban me, or ban them, but I'm not going to shut up. 

Spot on.

Exactly, I agree 100%

Vigilante moderation at it's best.

Bill O'Reily is a political figure. In fact, I see discussion of his politics and the Beach Boys politics as being very on topic.

Yes.  A blast from the past.  I'm your worst nightmare.  Remember me now?

But at the risk of taking up valuable real estate to discuss politics here, I will reluctantly refrain. Ask Mr. Rock & Roll - I don't bow out gracefully from political discussion, especially with Right Wingnuts.  At ease, Ron, this is for another time.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming Beach Boys tributes and accolades from people in all walks of life. Fans, politicians, musicians, people from music and show business, all forms of media, the whole gamut. Maybe there should be a separate thread for all the congratulatory quotes and stuff that will be coming in.

Yes - they've realized just how journalism has become, in the United States, a spectator sport that functions purely to entertain and then upped the ante.

 
They both present virtually the same point of view with small, meaningless and insubtantial differences. They both pretend like they are diametrically opposed to each other in order to keep the farce going that there's real political debate in the mainstream, and sometimes their viewers fall for it.

Right Wingnut?  f*** you.  I'm a republican, not a "Right Wingnut".  Apologize, asshole. 

And: No, I still don't remember you.  Where did we meet? 

Nah, you're a Right Wingnut in the true sense of the word. You write like one, you act like one, you even look like one. I've followed your rants here for a few months and I find you to be real funny, but in a weird, nonsensical way.

So you're stalking me?  Apology?  I didn't call you a "Leftwingnut", have a little class, Asswipe. 

Well i tried, now I got my popcorn ready for this! :hat

(http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif)

I ain't apologizing for anything, Ronnie.  Be nice.  Chuck and the mods here want it that way.

Let's get back on track. I hope The Beach Boys will get a lot of tributes from a lot of people this year.

Can someone read what this guy wrote about me, and kindly send me a PM?  It's going to be harder to get my restraining order signed if It appears I directly interacted with him. 

LOL

haaaaa! thriller :)

Amen, brotha!  ;D

Actually, that's pretty much the only place there IS any serious journalism going on (unless of course you mean "journalism" that  merely parrots the entrenched liberal talking points while acting as the press room for the current administration). It's one of the few places you can get any honest challenge to the prevailing dishonest whitewash by the left-leaning media of current events, particularly the stories they refuse to cover at all because they are contrary to their own political views.  You obviously really don't know the reputations and pedigrees of the large majority of the Fox news staff and anchors.  If you don't like the views of their conservative commentators, fine, those are commentators, but remember Fox is just about the only news channel that consistently offers viewpoints from commentators across the political spectrum.  You will not find that on a lot if any of the other stations - they generally offer one side, the liberal one, and if you don't like it, "tough.  We're smarter than you and our view is the only one you need".  And O'Reilly is not an entertainer - he is a serious reporter with an MA from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard who covers stories that people need to hear, no matter which side of the spectrum they fall on. He holds people accountable for their actions and their words, which is something the libs don't like, so they refuse to participate in the debate (and then claim Fox is "biased" when they're the ones refusing to take part.)

I love it when people bandy 'liberal' around as an insult, btw.

Was that a Manager of Media Relations audition? How'd he do, Rupe?

This going to get really ugly, everybody lets just take a deep breath and count to 10.....

I'm fine now. Don't worry 'bout me.

Yeah, I suppose I'd feel the same way if a cynical douche like Bill Maher were to salute the group. 

That's a fantasy. Bruce is a republican, Mike is sometimes, Brian is independent, Dennis non-political, Carl was a pacifist, Al no way he's a republican, David I know for a fact is not a republican. Blondie no. Ricky no. So... 1 1/2 out of 9. That's a very loose definition of ALL.

I am a conservative and used to like the Fox News types. But now I like Ron Paul libertarian types.

Just last night I viewed a YouTube clip of Mr Positive on O'Reilly back when he was suing Brian over the infamous British BB freebie cd. Just listen to him whine,whine,whine!!! :-D

Just like the greased pig that he is. :p

O'Reilley's an asshole ( the only conservative TV "pundit" I can really stomach is Stephen Colbert), but, as others have already said, at least he has a good taste in music. Personally, I'd be flattered if he called me a "pinhead".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBfybCPkjA

I'm no fan of O'Reilly, but I'm glad to see the Beach Boys getting some genuine love. He's clearly a fan. Though I always laugh when I hear people say "UPLIFTING music," because of course there was a lot of stuff that reflected Brian's depression. Then again, there was no cynicism there.

Wonder what Bill thinks of the darker aspects of the Beach Boys' story?

gotta love the ramones :]

Someone should get O'Reilley a copy of Heroes & Villains, I'm sure he'd think it's outta sight!

In fact, there is barely any serious journalism going on in the mainstream media, whether you're looking at Fox, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc. And moreover, the media is not "left-leaning." Rather, the media reflects the positions of the slim minority of concentrated power that owns and produces it. In the most recent edition of Ben Bagdikian's excellent The Media Monopoly, he shows that roughly 90% of mainstream media (including television, radio, print, etc.) is owned by only five corporations - Bertelsmann, Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner, and Viacom. Furthermore, as guitarfool noted above, not only is media owned by concentrated corporate power but its main target audience is not the population but rather other businesses - namely businesses who purchase advertising and thus create the largest amounts of revenue for the media. Of course, then, it makes perfect sense that the media should reflect the position of not only those who are responsible for its production but also responsible for its existence. This is why anybody who asks, "Is the media left or right" is ultimately asking the wrong question. Rather, the media reflects the status quo ideology held by the ruling class. Obviously they are not going to be in favor of a way of giving the news that incorporates a serious systemic critique - in fact, it wouldn't even cross their minds since typically they would believe that being "liberal" is the most radical position you could hold. So naturally you get a very narrow political perspective - usually reflecting somewhere between the center-right liberal stance and the extreme right stance held by Republicans with very little deviance from that extraordinarily narrow perspective.


That's completely false. As per above, Fox, like just about every other mainstream news outlet, offers viewpoints from commentators who reflect ideologically acceptable viewpoints. So Fox might go as far to the left as having a center-right liberal or pro-Democrat commentator but you wouldn't find anyone to the left of that there or anywhere else in the mainstream because anywhere left of that is threatening to the status quo ruling ideology and is disenfranchised from the media as it has been disenfranchised from mainstream political life for decades.


And, again, the liberal viewpoint is not really distinctly different from the Republican viewpoint. There is some deviation - mostly in terms of comparatively insignificant social views rather than  international or domestic policies where the view points are pretty much the same as Republicans. The fact that there is a theatrical pretense that there is a world of difference between the two so-called "sides" works to compensate for the lack of real, genuine political debate in the country.


Of course, he's an entertainer. Every television "journalist" is - he just happens to be hyper-aware of his function as an entertainer which is why he has been so successful. But there's no denying that his sole purpose is to entertain rather than to give serious, significant or substantial newsworthy information. That's why he uses catchphrases like the "no spin zone" and reduces people to "pinheads or patriots." He uses highly charged, infantile rhetoric precisely because he has absolutely zero interest in what he is actually saying. If he cared about the issue, he would present them in a serious way with some kind of methodology behind it. But he doesn't. He says the things he does in the way he does because his central function is to entertain and the heightened production value of his show only serves to reinforce that.
 
The fact that he was trained at an elite institution is, of course, exactly what one would expect. Elite institutions typically teach from and reflect an elitist point of view - which is perfectly in keeping with the points of view held by the ruling class. Journalism schools, for example, train people how to produce "proper" journalism - what the rules are, what constitutes news, etc. Naturally elite education serves typically to perpetuate the system.

You know Colbert is only pretending to be a conservative, right?

Yeah, but he hit the nail on the head with what he called Palin!

Uplifting music UPLIFTING MUSIC NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR "'TIL I DIE" BRIAN UPLIFINT MUSIC

this reaaaaaaaaaaaally needs to be answered

"CAROLINE NO"?

(http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/16175_o.gif)

FUCKIN' THING SUCKS!

UPLIFING MUSIC BRIAN

Rockandroll has some very valid points about where entertainment journalism comes from.  Occassionally, for the sake of ratings a firecracker is brought aboard for ratings.  Is that who O'Reilly is?  I don't know and don't care.  You can either get your news from a filtered source like entertainment journalism or find reliable, multinational sources and make up your own mind.  The networks market their own political position, to a greater degree.  

Recently a couple of The View hostesses walked off the set with O'Reilly on as a guest. Barbara Walters (a real journalist) put them back in check, telling them that they needed to hold themselves together professionally even if they violently disagreed with the speaker and the subject matter.  It is where drama takes a back seat.

The moderator is largely a function of the owner of the network, and reflects the positions of the network.   That should be pretty transparent.  Someone else posted the registered parties of the Boys.  It is no one's business for whom they vote.  When people go into the voting booth, the curtain closes, so to speak or even with the newer computerized / hard copy ballots, there is some modicum of privacy.  

Politics can infiltrate society but US dominated political discussions don't seem fair on a global forum.  It might be better discussed in the Sandbox, and the music treated in a "politically neutral" fashion. JMHO.

But O'Reilly is a fan who finds himself "upllifted"  by the Boys' music.  And that cuts across political parties, personalities, network interests, and all the "Hot Topics" on his or other entertainment journalism fora.  

Beach Boys rules, politics don't.

All you crazy GOP ppl and O'Reilly haters go to different forum.

I said "uplifting music" too, and I mean it very personally, because many, MANY times in my life when I've needed to be uplifted I've turned to the music of the Beach Boys and it helped me get through those rough times. As far as the uplifting nature of the band, when people go to a Beach Boys show or a Brian Wilson show or anything related, do many of them leave depressed, or do you mostly see smiles from those people?

That is uplifting. I agree with O'Reilly 100% with using that term to describe their music, and sometimes it's a gut reaction from hearing a song like In My Room or God Only Knows which creates a certain happiness that outweighs in that immediate moment whatever went into the song's creation 5 decades ago or whatever hardships befell the band through the years.

Uplifting and transcendent.

I get your point, but I don't think your argument here is valid. Do you leave ANY music show depressed?

Poorly performed shows, yes!

"Uplifting music" is just a euphemism for music you like. I find Joy Division songs to be uplifting in that they identify a sense of melancholia or anxiety that I recognize in myself, a state-of-mind that is going to be there regardless of what music I listen to. "'Til I Die" works the same way for me; it's honestly is reassuring. Now, unrealistic "uplifting music" is just plain depressing  :lol. Contrived emotions don't work for me. Fortunately, the best of the Beach Boys work is fairly sophisticated is presenting honest emotions, such as acknowledging that isolation can be a positive thing ("In My Room") or that having a good time is transitory and elusive ("I Get Around" or "It's OK").

Depends on the band and their performance. :)

If someone going to a show were to carry into that show all of the heavy baggage that has come with this band the Beach Boys, they would miss a portion of that pure joy of hearing the songs and experiencing them with other people you're sharing the music with. Take whatever song someone considers "uplifting" and go into all the negative things that may have gone into making that song, and you might just ruin that experience.

Or, what if the band members themselves were to, from the stage, go into all the darker and heavy stuff around the band during the actual show, and bring up all the darker stuff in the group's history, from the lawsuits to the drug abuse to the deaths in the family to whatever else...*that* would cause many to leave the show depressed, I'm sure.

One of the things music and concerts do so well is provide a bit of escapism from the daily grind. If I wanted to hear all the dark and gloomy stuff on the band I can read any number of books on the subject. But if the music "uplifts" me in some way, or uplifts Bill O'Reilly and whoever else agrees with his commentary on the band, maybe those folks do know the history and prefer to focus on the joy of the moment when they hear a Beach Boys song that makes them feel good.

If O'Reilly and I and whoever else here thinks the band has made uplifting music, don't laugh at us for feeling that way.  :)  It's a perfectly valid opinion.




 

Being around Christians The code word "Uplifting" in the Christian community is code word for music/movies that are "safe" for people and not considered "evil or blasphemy or antichristian". I'm not sure if that's why he said it but that's ONE possibilty of what he was saying since Christian conservatives typically watch Fox..

At the risk of sounding like a tree hugging hippie may I say that great music will always transend gender, race, religion and politics and reach out to people from all walks of life. The fact that a right wing douche like O'Reily can find joy in the songs of The Beach Boys just as much as the guy on the street speaks volumes about the power of Brian's music.

I'm actually surprised this conversation has gone as far as it has.  This amount of aggressive political talk would have been shut down several pages ago on the other boards I visit.

That's 'cause this board is a helluva lot better than the other boards.  Free speech prevails here.

"Starting out with Berkeley free speech and later on at People's Park, the winds of change fanned into flames........"

This is the same Fox News (Faux News) that spent an hour last July debating (quite a master de-bate indeed!) about whether Obama's recent trip to India cost taxpayers 2 BILLION or 3 BILLION $ a DAY.  Yes, 2-3 BILLION $ a day!  I watched the whole clip, and it was not funny to know that people can be just so, so ignorant.

LOL that anyone watches Faux Gnus or takes it seriously.

I think that crazy-haired lady in the red shirt from John McCain's campaign must be posting here!  LOL

That whole "story" came from a rumor in an Indian Newspaper.

The sooner people recognize that there are an equal number of douchebags on both the left wing and the right wing, the sooner this bickering can end.

"...student demonstrations spark"..... :rock

"Berkeley".  Yeah, Paulos, the place I'm going to see the guy who wrote those lyrics on June 1.   :)

I like breakfast sausages but I think I prefer corned beef hash. Goes great with my eggs and toast. And I get my news from Stephen Colbert.

Damn, I tried to fix your post and spelt Berkeley wrong!

Yes, sometimes "uplifting" is used in that way...as in, family friendly. And it's just funny that sometimes people think of the BBs as being very clean cut, and therefore acceptable for conservative consumption.
But it's also possible that O'Reilly meant that the BBs music makes him happy. It's just that the way he emphasized it ("uplifting, UPLIFTING") on his conservative TV show, the meaning came off as "clean-cut and okay for the kiddies, unlike that dirty pop and hip-hop music that promotes drugs, sex and other unspeakables." 

You fool, you should get your news from The Onion. The stories the liberal news media won't cover because they're afraid of 'the truth' and 'real debate'

Relax. I like the Onion. I also enjoy comedy and in that respect I laugh at Bill all the time. I think of him more as an entertainer than somebody serious. Rush Limbaugh did a great spot on Family Guy if you watched it. These guys are going for ratings more than anything.

And here's an emoticon  ;D and I'm out of this thread!

Mate, I was joking! Just trying to devolve this thread into stupidity and things  ;D

God knows we don't need more testy discussion involving rockandroll being ridiculously right and everyone else arguing with him, anyway  :)

This, exactly.

Replace "ridiculously right" with "long-winded" and you're right on the money.   :afro

He isn't a Right Winger, is he?  I always thought Rockandroll was a moderate or at least leaned more to the Left.  Or maybe an Indie, but definitely not Right!

You know what I mean....  :lol

The current president BHO, has had many, many musical acts in the WH since day 1. You can be sure the BB won't be one of them.

Well everybody has different tastes in music regardless of political affiliation.

Well then he must be evil  ::)

You never know, Dave. The Beach Boys may not have given to his campaign, but there are many Dems who like the Beach Boys and also the Pres. A little influence goes a long way. Obama may be a Blues guy, but I think he likes Rock & Roll too. I saw Jagger hand Obama a microphone to sing - and if HE can do it.........I dunno we'll see. Maybe we oughta get another petition going.

Wasn't that GWB?

Edit Edit Edit Edit.  Yeah, George Shrub.  Dunno if he was even there, was he?

And now I will candidly admit that I voted for Obama in '08. I wonder if he has a favorite BB song? That would be interesting to find out.....

Doubt he's even heard of them.  Reagan was a fan...

I seriously doubt Obama has never heard of the BBs. He grew up in the 60s, in Hawaii. And...he's alive. The BBs are nearly as well known as the Beatles. Reagan was a "fan," but was he really? He was in his 50s during their heyday. I know Stevie Wonder is supposedly Obama's favorite.  He seems to have good taste in music. Clinton was a huge music fan. I once saw him on this show hosted by Elvis Costello where he talked about his love of jazz. Not sure how we got onto this, but...

Reagan's relationship with the group is well-documented.  I think it's fair to say he liked the group. 

I guess I'm predisposed to think everything about Reagan was phony.  :-D 

Romney just released his playlist and the beach boys are on It, you should all vote for him

Yeah, I know. Should have put a couple  :lol :lol in my post.

If you're not sure what he was saying than it might be best not to bring that definition of the word uplift into the discussion.

I said uplifting as well to describe the band and the music, and I meant nothing relative to your definition.

Get all the audience members who witnessed Brian play "God Only Knows" in Boston during the first Smile tour, and ask them to define what happened after Brian played that specific song and the entire crowd erupted into a prolonged standing ovation that even Brian seemed amazed was happening. It's hard to define other than to say it was uplifting, and that term used that way for this event has nothing to do with whatever "code words" and other possibilities are being proposed.

I still don't understand why a commentary about the Beach Boys has to bring in all of the politics, it's f*cking sad that instead of seeing what people have in common with each other, many in this thread looked immediately to the politics and saw the negatives.

*That in itself is a disheartening commentary on the state of political discourse in 2012.*

If people can't put f*cking politics aside long enough to find even a slight connection through a shared enjoyment of music or a musical group, we're in sad shape. It shouldn't matter if it's Bill O'Reilly or anyone else if you agree with them, in this case praising the Beach Boys for what they do. Now the talk is "code words"? Sad.

Make sure to ask the people standing around you at the upcoming Beach Boys reunion shows what political party they support, so you can decide whether or not to share the good times with them. If they're not what you are or didn't vote for your side, democrat or republican or whatever, just tell them to f*ck off. That's what it could be heading for anyway if the reaction to a commentator calling the Beach Boys "uplifting" is any indication.

Seriously, is it too hard to put politics aside for something enjoyable that we can share with other people?

He was there.  :)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/briankennedy1.jpg)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/briankennedy2.jpg)

It's always refreshing to read posts by rockandroll and guitarfool2002. I'd enjoy this place so much more if even half the people here put as much thought into their posts as you guys, instead of it being dominated by people like Mikie.

BTW, rockandroll, I'm still doing research for my response to you regarding the False Barnyard book. Expect my rebuttal within the year.

Thanks for the kind words.

I would like to say though that I am a big fan of Mikie - not only has he come about as close as anyone could to the centre of the Beach Boys world back in the 70s (70s, right), but he was also one of the first people to respond to me in any real detail when I first got into The Beach Boys fandom world over ten years ago on the Cabinessence board.

Hey, gee, thanks a lot, CODger!  I'll be sure to remember that.

Rockandroll and I do go way back. He's educated, very articulate, and knowledgeable about music, politics, and religion and probably a lot of other things too. I remember (and learned from) many political conversations through the years between he and Bungalow Bill on that 'other' board. And we agree on quite a bit, especially stuff pertaining to The Beach Boys.

Are you still in Canada, Rockandroll?

You're not sure what he was saying either. No one is, except him. We're interpreting his meaning. So if you would kindly put aside the condescension, I'd appreciate it.
99 percent of the content of this forum is NOT political, so saying, "I still don't understand why a commentary about the Beach Boys has to bring in all of the politics" doesn't really make sense. Bill O'Reilly's show is a political show, and he used it as a platform to talk about the Beach Boys. It makes sense that some people might think that his politics might play a role in his BB-related comments, just as his politics play a role in his other comments on that show. But if you go back in the thread, you'll see I was one of the people who said it was NICE that O'Reilly said something nice about the BBs. It's great that people from many different backgrounds and with many different believes all love the BBs. (And yes, I get that the music is, in the purest sense, uplifting and moving, or I wouldn't be a member of this board.) I was just speculating as to whether there is sometimes another agenda behind referring to some music as uplifting, just as there is sometimes an agenda behind referring to other types of music as demoralizing or destructive. Not really a big deal, though.
O'Reilly likes the Beach Boys. Great. I'll leave it at that.

Bill O'Reily - what a twerp. But hey, Regan liked the Beach Boys too. So did Charles Manson (for a period). And i know this guy called Keith who also likes 'em and he's a total arse. Thankfully, none of which in any way disuades me from liking their uplifting - UPLIFTING - music.

It's funny you should say that, Cod, because I don't post on that many threads! Don't have the time nor energy to read every thread and address every topic and provide lengthy input and unsolicited responses to everything being said here. There are quite a bit of other people who post here on a daily/weekly basis on many different threads. I don't.

LOUD NOISES!

Sure am!

Guitarman, you are correct about the GOK response by that audience.  And you are also correct about the connotation of neutrality of "uplifting." When I read the wiki blurb on Bill, and he worked a while in Boston, he was just another pretty face in the media who was on the move up to the big networks,  I cracked up reading that he had 12+ years of Catholic school education and can only imagine that he spent a more than few minutes in the detention room.  A place I know well!  ;)

That said, having had a similar background, although he has some years on me, his formation, was likely very "ecumenical" and open minded, which required a strong background in as well as New Testament study.  It was a strong Judeo-Christian curriculum.  He went to post secondary at Marist before BU and Harvard.  He was likely schooled in Latin, as a requirement, as well as at least one other language.  

Whatever views Bill espouses, via the network he works for, or even personal views, have nothing to do with being a Boys fan.  Nor a "generic" religiously neutral term such as "uplifting."   I find it a bizarre stretch of the imagination.  

One would hope that their music is a "safe haven" for all who would be listeners and fans.  It is a place of humanity, not one of religiosity.  Brian and Mike (and others) found that happy haven, excitement haven, and soulful haven (as one of the Bee Gees refered to the music) which can be "uplifting" to the human spirit.

Let's not forget the effect and influence of Eastern religious figures such as the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, alongside the Beatles, a divergent point of view was introduced to their fans, enlarging the horizon of that era.

Carl Wilson often referred to their music as being "spiritual."  (See Endless Harmony DVD.) Did Carl mean the American political religious" right?" Not on your life!

The left versus right battle rages enough as it is in too many facets of daily life. It's not condescending to suggest taking that commentary posted here from O'Reilly at face value without searching for a hidden meaning, a hidden agenda, or something else to suggest a commentator is trying to express anything beyond his admiration for the Beach Boys. It's an admiration shared by nearly everyone on this board, and I know if I sat down with some members I've communicated with for years in person, our politics may differ and we may disagree on political philosophy but that wouldn't interfere with the things we have in common, namely music and the music of the Beach Boys. I don't like to see that deteriorate into name calling and left vs. right debates as it did here, but that's just me.

The shared interest in music is what brings people together, and when all is said and done, isn't it better to look for those things that connect us rather than searching for an ulterior motive if the person is left or right and you're not? It just seems like there is too much of this political good vs. bad, left vs. right disagreement going on in society that we can't see what is directly in front of us, as a common interest between people no matter what ideology they put forth and whether you agree with their politics.

I'm utopian that way, in thinking a shared love of music can connect people no matter what they believe politically. It's at least something to strive for to connect rather than separate based on political beliefs.

BTW

Nice pics, GF!  thanks!

I think you're taking my posts on this thread too seriously. I was only expressing a view about the way people sometimes twist  or use language. It's all over the place, and I've become sensitive to it, which I think is important when you're watching a commentator. But I didn't mean to imply that O'Reilly was necessarily doing that. Again, I'll say I'm believe he's really a fan, and I'm pleased that he is, all politics aside. I think you'll find I agree with you when you say it's good when music can bring people together. Obviously there's a wide range of political beliefs on this board, but we all share a love of the BBs. So let's just talk about the music, okay?

Well said, and right the f*** on!

Well, we tried.....  :lol

I don't really want to talk politics on the music forum, but I will just offer this and then butt out:

My conservative family and friends believe the media as a whole has a liberal bias. My liberal friends believe the media has a conservative bias. And obviously depending on where you fit in the spectrum, you could see it either way. (If I stand to your left, you're on my right. That doesn't put you on THE right, just mine.) It seems the most realistic perspective to me that mainstream media is dominated by huge businesses whose interests don't lie so much in political philosophy of either side, but rather of profit for their own industry. At times that's liberal and at times it's conservative, but mostly it's just selfish.

America's Band.  That would include all of us!  Make the Celebration for everybody!  Wrote WOTS on the death of JFK.  Rescued from James Watt by Ronald Reagon.  Loved by all.

i heard a few times that the beach boys are america's greatest band ..without being bias do any of you agree?

Scientists in America recently did some research in which they said they'd scientifically proven that right-wing people are less intelligent than left-wing people.

Of course being a bunch of science-hating, climate change-denying, evolution-questioning simpletons, the right-wingers instantly came out with a load of ill-thought-out theories as to why this couldn't possibly be the case, thus inadvertently proving the scientists right.

What does this even mean?  A pro-lifer is generally stupider than a pro-choicer?  A pro-small government type is generally stupider than a pro-big government type?   

Would love to see a link to the test and it's criteria, and also the "ill-thought-out theories" that "proved the scientists right."   

I don't think there's anything particularly legitimate about that so-called "study" but I will say that pro-life/pro-choice is not a left-right issue. You find plenty of mix on that issue on both sides of the political spectrum. And furthermore, size of government has very little to do with left-right too. You'll find many factions on the right (the Republican party in the US, for instance) who are in favor of an extremely large government. On the other hand the further to the left you go, the smaller government gets, at least as it currently operates in industrialized countries. But theoretically, you could have small governments on both sides of the spectrum, although it's only on the left where you can literally have an organized system that is run with no political power.

I was quoting it in good humour.

(T'was a real test though - sure there's info online

Surprised this has gone so many pages.  I have more pressing business than to get upset over Rock 'n' Roll Republicans liking the BB.  Bill O can dig 'em, and we'll argue about the rest.

Anyone remember Morton Downey Jr.?  Another NY-based right winger TV show host, came up around the same time as Limbaugh.  Downey was a big Beatles and John Lennon fan, and one night (actually maybe two nights) he tore apart Albert Goldman's trash-talk bio of Lennon.   Downey had done his homework and it was a good watch.  Too bad the ciggies got him.

Every forum needs a good political laxative once in a while.  ;D

Wasn't Bill O'Reily the bricklayer on Fawlty Towers?  "O'Reily" men... LOL

I know I'm going to regret this...  :-D ...but please elaborate.  If the primary difference between conservatives and liberals isn't small vrs. large government (at least on a theoretical level), than what do you see as the difference?  If your point is that in reality there is little difference when it comes to the dems and repub parties, sadly I agree.

Thanks for asking. I'm afraid this will probably be more long-windedness but maybe you can enjoy a nice snack during it!  :)

The first thing that I will say just to avoid confusion is that while the Democratic party essentially espouse several of the classic liberal positions with some crucial modifications, I don't believe (and I think I've said this before here elsewhere) that the Republican party represent conservative values (I'll return to why that is a bit later). Republicans, like Democrats, mostly follow a fairly neoliberal economic program. Where they differ most significantly is typically in terms of social issues which are not really political, as far as I'm concerned. The minor differences in the other policies do make favoring one party over the other an easy decision for me, though.

Another important thing to add is that I was talking about left and right on the political spectrum and not conservatives and liberals. Liberalism, historically, is right of center. What is commonly referred to as Conservatism is, to me, a bit to the left of that. But importantly both have a lot in common in terms of internal philosophy because they both basically come from the same place - or what I really mean is that both were dramatically shaped to their commonly held terms under similar circumstances, namely post-Enlightenment nations under monarchal rule. Consequently, both sides are particularly interested in classical Enlightenment notions of freedom and liberty. In the philosophical world, it seems to me that conservatives came down harder against power than the liberals did. So, for example, you have David Hume lamenting about how "the many are governed by the few" and how "men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers." As conservatism developed, then, it typically had issues with changes being brought about by the Industrial Revolution as the division of labor of early capitalism worked to nullify free will, determinacy, and liberty. Given this background it's fairly difficult to see the connection between the Republican party and traditional conservatism as I understand it.

Liberalism, which developed out of a very similar mindset said many of the same things. Therefore, someone like John Locke who came before the French revolution but during the Enlightenment, supported rigorously the concepts of life, health, and liberty in a society where all are equal and independent. Unlike someone like Hume though, Locke like other liberals, did not come down as hard on power - believed in things like property ownership, government separation of powers, etc. You can kind of see how liberalism developed from there.

So that's how I see some of the differences between liberals and conservatives and also how I account for their fairly close place on the political spectrum. They essentially were borne out of the same mindset under similar circumstances.

I'm not sure if that answers your question though because, again, I was talking about right and left rather than liberal and conservative. And like I said, it doesn't quite account for Republicans and Democrats since both essentially represent neoliberal values rather than traditional liberal or conservative ones. But I think it's important to understand these terms because when we conflate liberalism with the left and conservatism with the right (and on the same line, conflate the Democratic party with the left or liberalism and the Republican party with the right or conservatisim) we confuse things a lot and don't quite get to what the reality of the current situation really is. But nevertheless I think it's a confusion that works to reinforce the power system as it exists now, but that's a subject for another time (and place, perhaps...).

Hope that wasn't too dreary!

Nope, read the whole thing!

So how do you define left and right, then?

(not arguing, just chatting)

Happy to chat - hope it doesn't bother other people!

Left and right are, to an extent, value judgements but I think it's fairly agreed upon amongst enough people with a background in this that we can talk about it in some sort of objective way. I think that by and large, politics is more or less economics - that one's place on the political spectrum is suggestive of one's economic philosophy. For the most part, the right represents capitalism, but it encompasses a wide variety of views, either in terms of laissez-faire free market capitalism, mixed economy, neoliberalism, state sanctioned capitalism, and so on. At the extreme end of the right spectrum, you get highly authoritarian, highly militarized , fascist states. Social democracy is sort of in the middle of the spectrum or just left of centre. The further to the left you go, you get socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism, and so on. And this is why I suggest that you can have big governments on either end of the spectrum - you can have the kind of militaristic, corporate welfare state on the right, and you can have the state controlled socialist state on the left, though, in my opinion, the latter is really a paradox of terminology since socialism, if it functions properly, should really dissolve the state of its power which is why ultimately I made the point earlier that it is really only on the left where you get the elimination of political power.

It's certainly not bothering me.  I'm really enjoying your posts.   :thumbsup

To summarize what you said:

"extreme right" = highly authoritarian, highly militarized , fascist states

"the right" = capitalism, laissez-faire free market capitalism, mixed economy, neoliberalism, state sanctioned capitalism

"the middle" = Social democracy

"left" = socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism


Is this "left" in sequence?  Do you mean to put libertarianism to the left of communism, and do you consider anarchism furthest left?  Interestingly, most people I know who consider themselves libertarians would say that they lean to the right, not the left.



 

v
Again, I appreciate the questions. I would say your summary is about right. The only qualification that I might make is adding the corporate welfare state to the extreme right though it really falls under the term "highly authoritarian" because what ends up happening as a result of the corporate welfare state is essentially unchecked tyrannical power that is held by the slim minority. So what you get there are societies that are highly authoritarian and, essentially, dictatorial because they are ruled by corporate power, rather than government power. So I might add corporate welfare state but really, "highly authoritarian" does the trick - it just now becomes a complex term that means a variety of things.

I didn't necessarily think of a sequence for the left. The left, as I see it, is full of different visions for the way society could work and it's hard to say necessarily which one is "lefter" than the other. Socialism is workers controlling the means of production while communism includes that but also entails what is often called a dictatorship of the proleteriat, which really isn't so much of a dictatorship. In Marx's (and Engels') vision, they saw it necessary for there to still be a ruling class but one held by the proletariat rather than the bourgeois or the petty bourgeois. Now one could say that this is somewhat problematic (and, to be honest, I think it is too, on principle) but  it is necessary to remember that probably over 90% of the population was proletariat. So basically, it's a ruling class that encompasses over 90% of the population which is a far cry less tyrannical and hierarchical than what Marx saw as a ruling class that consisted of less than 10% of the population exploiting the rest of the population. Now which one is more left than the other is ultimately hard to say - they both have the same basic economic principle with some variation in terms of how a society could be run (though that is similar too).

The point you make about libertarianism is a common one and the reason why it's a common one is because the term was hijacked and bastardized when it was transplated from Europe where it had a long and vibrant history to the United States. The term itself  dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on socialism and communism without the dicatorship of the proletariat. Anarchist societies would be highly organized, including socialist workers councils in industry and direct, full participatory democracy in communities. Socities would be federated, decentralized, and worked by means of free associations. Now because of the nature of anarchist philosophy, there's really no one solution of achieving such a society - it's always been a relatively open field and up for discussion. But one particular area, as it were, of anarchism was, for a long time, libertarianism. That's the history of libertarian philosophy and that's what libertarianism was both at the philosophical level and the popular level. And that's basically how it is understood everywhere outside of the United States.

In the US, the term started being used in the 1950s but at that point in the US it was simply inconceivable to imagine possibilities of that kind of a society - the ideology had already been shaped radically by the business-led ruling class. So the term meant something else - namely to let the business class do whatever it needs to do without the interference of government. Well, that of course, is nothing like what actual libertarianism is but it picked up enough steam that libertarian candidates started running on this bastardized interpretation in the 70s and it's been sort of consistent like that ever since.

Everything said in the last two pages - noted and appreciated! :)

I absolutely remember Mort Downey! I'd watch him on channel 9 WOR out of New York on our cable system. Some of his earlier shows were as compelling and as "new" as any political talk show I've seen since, but I think he fell victim to the fame and success and became a caricature of himself rather than putting it out there in a more direct way. As soon as he inspired a home board game based on his show, it had to signal the end was probably near. You can't take a raw, powerful show and compress it into a home edition without losing focus somewhere. I used to enjoy his show, and while Mort could be annoying and could take things too far, he did do his homework and he did bring up issues which weren't talked about outside either the Sunday morning shows or the Bill Buckley-influenced classical music theme and brown sportcoat crowd. He got people interested in politics.

And this is *still* a topic of debate, maybe someone else can add to it, but Morton Downey Jr. was not only a singer (questionable results...) but he said for years he was involved in some classic early California surf recordings, including Pipeline...whether it was done in his garage as he claimed or whether he was involved in other ways, that's for the historians to debate. :) But it was always a claim he made.

I remember Morton Downey too but I was a child and he seemed feral and frightened me!  :lol

 :-D

He would get out of control at times, for sure! And he chain-smoked like a chimney and had said his coffee mug was kept filled with vodka to keep him going. One of the first shows I remember watching was an episode where his security had to physically remove a guest, and as he was being carried off this guy said things like "I'm not leaving Mort, I'm not going to go!!!" and he kicked a ladder and other things as they carried him backstage with legs kicking. Was it scripted or real? I don't know, but that made me keep watching. And another episode had Roy Ennis knocking Al Sharpton off his chair after a discussion heated up to the boiling point. Again, real or staged? In between those things it could be an informative show.

Of all the things I look for on YouTube, I have never looked for old episodes of that show. Maybe those episodes I remember are posted somewhere. :-D

His teeth were terrifying!

Way off topic...YouTube is amazing. The Al Sharpton/Roy Ennis Mort Downey Jr. fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcOgOWLCWxw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcOgOWLCWxw)

Back on topic! It's just that I hadn't seen that clip in over 20 years and one quick search on YouTube, there it was.

I well remember Morton, but do you also remeber Joe Pyne?  He was a major "influence" (ha!) on Morton, and the others.

Very interesting guy, Joe was!

Ha!  Nuthin' personal with the "long-winded" comment.  I just think when you're trying to make an effective point, sometimes less is more. :) I do appreciate your well-thought out responses, even if I don't entirely agree with some of them.  To each his own!

What he said - rockandroll, guitarfool, and The Real Beach Boy (to name but a few) always bring good stuff to the political discussions on the board because they know what's up and can back their opinions up. It's good to read well-thought and considered opinions, even if you don't agree, because it's so much better than knee-jerk asshole posting which is what these threads can turn into.

So, er, keep it up you guys!  ;D