The Beach Boys and Ronald Reagan???

[Wrightfan]

I couldn't care less about who was left or right. There's an unhealthy obsession with that in this country.

Just be happy.

[Mahalo]

Just be happy.

I like that part of your quote... and spoken as a true Mets fan!!    Go Mets!!

[drbeachboy]

Hey, if Tip O'Neill and Reagan, who were polar opposites politically, could get along and be friends after working hours, then The Beach Boys being friendly towards sitting presidents would and should not be an issue.

[feelflows]

Re Dennis - hard to believe he was a right-winger. The guy was so flipping open-minded he befriended Manson lest we forget. Tracks like 4th of July and Carry me Home are right-on, not right-wing. Ditto Carl.

It actually wouldn't shock me to learn he was a bit right-leaning.  I know he said some offensive things about gay people, and while you might take his friendship with Manson as a sign of "openness," he must have know that this was a racist group.  There's a socially conservative streak there.

Disclaimer: Not trying to imply that all Republicans are  racist or homophobic.

[Alex]

Re Dennis - hard to believe he was a right-winger. The guy was so flipping open-minded he befriended Manson lest we forget. Tracks like 4th of July and Carry me Home are right-on, not right-wing. Ditto Carl.

It actually wouldn't shock me to learn he was a bit right-leaning.  I know he said some offensive things about gay people, and while you might take his friendship with Manson as a sign of "openness," he must have know that this was a racist group.  There's a socially conservative streak there.

Disclaimer: Not trying to imply that all Republicans are  racist or homophobic.

Dennis, right-leaning??? I would've swore I saw a post here a while back by Stebbins, basically saying he was a member of the "'party' party". Left, right, center, up, down, sideways, fence-sitter, tree-hugger, war hawk, didn't matter...what mattered was drugs, booze, sex, cars, fun times...

Honestly, I just think the boys did what they did, just acted like themselves without really being conscious of (or just didn't care about) whatever political sentiment they were representing/being associated with.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Re NHC.

Without wanting to get too political, why'd you describe Obama as 'our current "president"'? Why the inverted comma's? Please tell me we don't have a birther in our midst... (Least Obama got legitimately elected, unlike certain other recent presidents i can think of... Just saying.)

[LostArt]

I couldn't care less about who was left or right. There's an unhealthy obsession with that in this country.

I agree 100%.  

We must not forget that the Republican party and the Democratic party were much different in the '60s and '70s than they are now.  There was much more compromise, much less polarization.  There were 'southern Democrats', who's ideology was much more fiscally conservative than 'liberal Democrats'.  Hell, there were 'Reagan Democrats' (in fact, Reagan himself was a Democrat until 1962).  There were also more moderate Republicans, although the end of the Eisenhower era could have been called the beginning of the end for the more left-leaning Republicans.  Barry Goldwater took the party much more to the right with his presidential bid in '64.  When Goldwater lost in a landslide, though, there were still signs of life for the more liberal branch of the Republican party.  You had guys like New York mayor John Lindsay, and Michigan governor George Romney (yep, Mitt's dad) who were very successful.  One could say that Richard Nixon (who was Eisenhower's VP) was much more a moderate than Republicans who came just a few years later.  Politically speaking, things weren't so black and white (no pun intended) then.  It wasn't this 'yer either with us, or yer against us' mentality, which in my opinion has really damaged this country.


I'll stop now.    

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I couldn't care less about who was left or right. There's an unhealthy obsession with that in this country.

I agree 100%.  

We must not forget that the Republican party and the Democratic party were much different in the '60s and '70s than they are now.  There was much more compromise, much less polarization.  There were 'southern Democrats', who's ideology was much more fiscally conservative than 'liberal Democrats'.  Hell, there were 'Reagan Democrats' (in fact, Reagan himself was a Democrat until 1962).  There were also more moderate Republicans, although the end of the Eisenhower era could have been called the beginning of the end for the more left-leaning Republicans.  Barry Goldwater took the party much more to the right with his presidential bid in '64.  When Goldwater lost in a landslide, though, there were still signs of life for the more liberal branch of the Republican party.  You had guys like New York mayor John Lindsay, and Michigan governor George Romney (yep, Mitt's dad) who were very successful.  One could say that Richard Nixon (who was Eisenhower's VP) was much more a moderate than Republicans who came just a few years later.  Politically speaking, things weren't so black and white (no pun intended) then.  It wasn't this 'yer either with us, or yer against us' mentality, which in my opinion has really damaged this country.


I'll stop now.    

I look at this from another angle. I agree that the left vs. right debate (which I wouldn't characterize as such, since the left has been entirely disenfranchised from the political system and therefore their positions tend to not be explained in the media where this debate is most pronounced) isn't very productive. I'd say that the reason why this debate is so aggressive and vitriolic, though, is because there is, in fact, very little substantive difference between the two ruling parties in the United States. Both parties represent the same interests - they are inculcated by representatives of those interests, brought to power by those interests, and are obliged to serve those interests while in office. You will see some minor differences between Democrats and Republicans, though mostly in their social views rather than international or domestic policies where their policies are pretty much the same. I would suggest, then, that the vitriolic argument between Democrats and Republicans overcompensates for the lack of real, genuine debate at the political level.  Consequently the mainstream media, which represents the same ideological status quo interests that make up the American political system, tends to focus on the comparatively trivial social views (because that’s where the majority of the differences lie) or in the very small, insignificant differences in international and domestic policies (i.e. the difference of opinion of just when is the right time to invade a country, which country is right to invade, what circumstances allow for an invasion, etc.). What I think is required, then, is not so much more compromise (since the two parties are virtually identical in their policies) but rather a system that allows for a real, genuine political alternative and an admission that the aggressive Democratic-Republican debate is nothing more than a theatrical fiction.

Also, it might be better if this were moved to Off Topics.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't think it should be moved, I hope it stays "on topic". There was a legitimate question about a chapter in Beach Boys history that I (personally) feel has been mischaracterized since 1983. If Beach Boys fans want to read a few versions of the story, or read the entire saga for the first time perhaps, it's definitely an on-topic thread to remain here for reference.

Maybe the political discourse topics that are popping up should be restarted in another thread so the parts related to the Beach Boys can stay in the right place.

And just to restate my thoughts on a previous page, does it or should it matter how the Beach Boys lean politically? Is that ideology seriously, seriously(?), a basis of negative judgement or positive reinforcement on any given band member among fans? I hope not.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

And just to restate my thoughts on a previous page, does it or should it matter how the Beach Boys lean politically? Is that ideology seriously, seriously(?), a basis of negative judgement or positive reinforcement on any given band member among fans? I hope not.

It doesn't necessarily matter - certainly not in terms of how I evaluate their music in this case. It always troubles me, though, when artists have a connection with a mainstream leader because, mainstream political figures tend to represent the status quo while artists, I think, should be constantly striving to avoid that. Sometimes, as in the case of The Beach Boys and also The Beatles (Harold Wilson anyone?), their relationship with the political mainstream didn't appear to be reflected in their creativity.

I don't want to suggest either that music or art shouldn't be political. Quite the contrary, it is impossible to not be political. But there is a difference between taking a political stance, and chumming it up with the current mainstream leader.

[drbeachboy]

And just to restate my thoughts on a previous page, does it or should it matter how the Beach Boys lean politically? Is that ideology seriously, seriously(?), a basis of negative judgement or positive reinforcement on any given band member among fans? I hope not.

It doesn't necessarily matter - certainly not in terms of how I evaluate their music in this case. It always troubles me, though, when artists have a connection with a mainstream leader because, mainstream political figures tend to represent the status quo while artists, I think, should be constantly striving to avoid that. Sometimes, as in the case of The Beach Boys and also The Beatles (Harold Wilson anyone?), their relationship with the political mainstream didn't appear to be reflected in their creativity.

I don't want to suggest either that music or art shouldn't be political. Quite the contrary, it is impossible to not be political. But there is a difference between taking a political stance, and chumming it up with the current mainstream leader.

You can do both. Bob Hope was a good example of no matter his political leanings, he was able to be friendly with all of the Presidents from Roosevelt through Clinton.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You can do both. Bob Hope was a good example of no matter his political leanings, he was able to be friendly with all of the Presidents from Roosevelt through Clinton.

Certainly, you can do both. Bob Hope is a really interesting example - mostly because I am completely and utterly infatuated with a portion of his work. As an aspiring screenwriter, I often used some of his early 40s and 50s movies (namely My Favorite Brunette, Where's There's Life, Monsieur Beaucaire, and Casanova's Big Night) as a template for my own stuff. That being said, Hope had some of the best writers in the business and while his delivery in those films at least is note perfect, the linguistic virtuosity of those films is what truly impresses me. It is Hope's more famous political-esque humor (symbolized by him in front of a large audience with a golf club) that I typically find to be really insipid, trite, and boring. To me, his slide into a kind of dull comedian was a reflection of his own connection to the political mainstream world.

[drbeachboy]

How he performed in the movies and radio show were quite different to what he did as a standup comedian. That kind of material is only as good as the president he is commenting about. Notice too, that unlike today's comedians, his jokes were never mean spirited and therefore had no memorable bite to them. His standup routine was always topical as far back as the 1940s. The troops that he entertained didn't seem to mind too much that it was lightweight fare.

[guitarfool2002]

Bob Hope is a conundrum, what I do know and will say almost without hesitation is that there will never be another Bob Hope in the US, especially in the current climate (or the climate since he stopped being an active performer.)

My father served in World War 2, he was in the Pacific on Saipan. Anyone or anything from "home" meant a lot to those guys, as the only communication was the mail delivery, and at some point it didn't matter what the entertainers would do or say...just being there was an escape for the guys serving. There were professional athletes stationed on various Pacific islands, pro baseball players who were in the Navy - and they'd hold scrimmages on the islands. Guys like my dad can still remember watching those games, and which players were there. It meant a lot to watch a baseball game that far away from home, there is an emotional element to this we're discussing on Bob Hope that was more powerful than the quality or content of his performances.

All those guys came back from the war(s) - they'd see Bob Hope in a few years on television - he held a special place for a lot of them who got to see a USO show with Hope and his troupe of performers. If he gave a performance that was sub-par, sluggish, whatever standards we might apply, it didn't carry as much weight with those guys who Bob Hope entertained at a time when they needed a smile, or even to see a woman from back home in person. It was Bob Hope, he was there for us, we won't forget that. Powerful, powerful stuff.

It's a total generational thing at play, but mention names like Bob Hope - I seriously think he transcended the political discourse and was there for entertainment. That was his mission - to entertain, and for military servicemen he was there to give them a piece of what they were missing at home (it's cliche, but it's true). I'd suggest anyone who tries to criticize Bob Hope for not being political enough, or for leaning one way or another politically doesn't have a grasp on the era and the people who Hope entertained.

There are entertainers who transcend political discourse, and are universally popular. I'd like to think the Beach Boys are among that group for millions of listeners.

[drbeachboy]

You nailed it, exactly.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'd suggest anyone who tries to criticize Bob Hope for not being political enough, or for leaning one way or another politically doesn't have a grasp on the era and the people who Hope entertained.

That's not quite what I'm saying although I disagree that there was something about the era that spoke to Hope's particular political bent. After all, Hope, at his height, was working in a much more politically charged time than our own which is politically anathesized. Rather, I'm saying that Hope's own position in the mainstream status quo is probably what speaks to the overall dullness of his comedy, particular in the later years, despite the impact it had on overseas military.

[Menace Wilson]

Disclaimer: Not trying to imply that all Republicans are  racist or homophobic.

Glad you clarified that.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Disclaimer: Not trying to imply that all Republicans are  racist or homophobic.

Glad you clarified that.

Yes, the priority really should be making sure the extreme right doesn't feel insulted by reductivist remarks about about them. 

[guitarfool2002]

I'd suggest anyone who tries to criticize Bob Hope for not being political enough, or for leaning one way or another politically doesn't have a grasp on the era and the people who Hope entertained.

That's not quite what I'm saying although I disagree that there was something about the era that spoke to Hope's particular political bent. After all, Hope, at his height, was working in a much more politically charged time than our own which is politically anathesized. Rather, I'm saying that Hope's own position in the mainstream status quo is probably what speaks to the overall dullness of his comedy, particular in the later years, despite the impact it had on overseas military.

I think someone who is under a certain age and would not have experienced Bob Hope in the 1940's would have a far different impression of him if the only Bob Hope they've known in their lifetime was either the white-haired older man who did television specials a few times each year, or the guy shown performing in old newsreel footage. The latter is the Bob Hope that we saw since, say, the mid 1970's.

What I'm suggesting is that Bob Hope was part of a "shared experience" among nearly every American of a certain age that went through World War 2. And at some point it becomes "Bob Hope" the image even more than Bob Hope the actual person, I hate to use the word but some figures in American pop culture had an aura that could have exceeded their actual creative output. We know more of those entertainers in a post-Elvis celebrity world - the names of those from the generation before Elvis and youth culture exploded are simply fading out of the public discourse, even fading from the history.

I grew up with parents who lived those years and I'd hear all kinds of names that are all but foreign in 2012, yet at a certain time had an incredible influence and popularity. Names like Arthur Godfrey, images of neighbors coming to the few houses on the block that had a television set to watch "Uncle Milty" Milton Berle on television, Jackie Gleason's show, Ted Mack's Amateur Hour, Kay Keyser's College Of Musical Knowledge...the list goes on. We can watch grainy kinescopes of Milton Berle's early Texaco-sponsored television shows and they look amateur, flat, somewhat corny and even unfunny...but at one time, he was among the kings of American entertainment and people would plan an evening around watching his program. Same with Arthur Godfrey, who in the year 2012 knows all that much about him? Yet at one time he was among the most popular and loved personalities in America.

It's hard to gauge the true impact of someone like Bob Hope without putting him into the context of his era: What makes it tough with him is how long he lived, and how the image of him that my generation saw most often isn't the same as what my parents' generation knew. I see it happening with artists I remember thinking a certain way about when I was in my teens being seen in a far different light by the next generation, and it makes me feel old! Even though I'm not, really, but still...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Great points there.

If you look at my first post where I talk about Bob Hope, though, you'll note how I said that I am infatuated with some of his work. What strikes me is that his films (from the 40s and 50s) are not only some of the funniest movies ever made, but in fact, still stand up today. You can see the influence that those films in particular had on some of the funniest comedians from the 70s onward. What somewhat surprises me is how those films are so much strikingly better than Hope's stand-up comedy or even other movies he chose to do, like say the much more successful yet much less funny Road pictures with Bing Crosby. I am suggesting that it was Hope's own affiliation with the mainstream status quo that probably led him to doing a lot of work that was safe and rather lifeless, despite having the talent to carry off what was probably the most engaging, surprising comedy of his time.

[Menace Wilson]

Disclaimer: Not trying to imply that all Republicans are  racist or homophobic.

Glad you clarified that.

Yes, the priority really should be making sure the extreme right doesn't feel insulted by reductivist remarks about about them. 

Who are you  referring to as "the extreme right"?

[guitarfool2002]

I agree, and I think that was a great point to make. Every artist who reaches that certain level of fame and success reaches a similar point in their career, I think. They have to either play to their established audience (the status quo) or go for something that risks being less of a commercial success yet would show off their talents more than the established routine. I think we can make a list of the best of the best entertainers and see where in the later parts of their careers they stopped being innovators and played the role people knew them for.

I was thinking of an extreme example this morning, the first one that crossed my mind was Johnny Carson but looking back, his example just didn't work: He never stopped being the Johnny Carson millions watched on TV. He was private and secluded almost to a fault, so the Carson we still remember is the Carson on television because that's all we got to see.

Then it hit me: Redd Foxx. It is amazing how much of a pop culture figure he became after playing the lovable old junkman Fred Sanford on "Sanford And Sons". I'd say his character was one of the most popular of the 70's, and I still see people imitating him or referencing him. Yet Redd Foxx was one of the most profane and explicit comedians working the comedy circuits prior to his television work. His records were actually banned from many shops, his image was that of a profane "blue" comedian who you wouldn't want your kids listening to, yet how many people see a photo of Redd Foxx without thinking of his Sanford And Son character? And also, as far as being banned and profane and all that, why isn't Redd mentioned in history alongside Lenny Bruce? Or is he and I'm just not reading those accounts?

It's amazing how powerful television can be when creating an image. I think after Sanford And Sons, Redd Foxx had to play Fred Sanford more often than Redd Foxx for the fans.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Disclaimer: Not trying to imply that all Republicans are  racist or homophobic.

Glad you clarified that.

Yes, the priority really should be making sure the extreme right doesn't feel insulted by reductivist remarks about about them. 

Who are you  referring to as "the extreme right"?

Feelflows referenced Republicans.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I agree, and I think that was a great point to make. Every artist who reaches that certain level of fame and success reaches a similar point in their career, I think. They have to either play to their established audience (the status quo) or go for something that risks being less of a commercial success yet would show off their talents more than the established routine. I think we can make a list of the best of the best entertainers and see where in the later parts of their careers they stopped being innovators and played the role people knew them for.

I was thinking of an extreme example this morning, the first one that crossed my mind was Johnny Carson but looking back, his example just didn't work: He never stopped being the Johnny Carson millions watched on TV. He was private and secluded almost to a fault, so the Carson we still remember is the Carson on television because that's all we got to see.

Then it hit me: Redd Foxx. It is amazing how much of a pop culture figure he became after playing the lovable old junkman Fred Sanford on "Sanford And Sons". I'd say his character was one of the most popular of the 70's, and I still see people imitating him or referencing him. Yet Redd Foxx was one of the most profane and explicit comedians working the comedy circuits prior to his television work. His records were actually banned from many shops, his image was that of a profane "blue" comedian who you wouldn't want your kids listening to, yet how many people see a photo of Redd Foxx without thinking of his Sanford And Son character? And also, as far as being banned and profane and all that, why isn't Redd mentioned in history alongside Lenny Bruce? Or is he and I'm just not reading those accounts?

It's amazing how powerful television can be when creating an image. I think after Sanford And Sons, Redd Foxx had to play Fred Sanford more often than Redd Foxx for the fans.

Yes!! Exactly. To just about every sentence in there.

[Menace Wilson]

Disclaimer: Not trying to imply that all Republicans are  racist or homophobic.

Glad you clarified that.

Yes, the priority really should be making sure the extreme right doesn't feel insulted by reductivist remarks about about them. 

Who are you  referring to as "the extreme right"?

Feelflows referenced Republicans.

So "Republicans" are "the extreme right"?  How progressive of you.