The 1960s overflowed with social injustices, civil rights, and the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement and the Vietnam War took center stage. Activists exercised democracy in action, demonstrating their rights under the First Amendment. These protests were breeding grounds that forged a path to songs by musicians with a social conscience. Protest songs of the 60s were instrumental in shaping domestic policy. "Times They are a Changin", by Bob Dylan became a theme song of the civil rights movement. "Eve of Destruction" by Barry McGuire influenced legislators to reduce the voting age to 18 with the line, "You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin". Jimi Hendrix’s solo, spell binding guitar rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock was symbolized to be the most influential protest song of the 60s. What other songs contributed to change in America by utilizing American values?
I would recommend looking into Peter, Paul and Mary, Pete Seeger and others who collaborated with them for more on this topic. – LisaM4 months ago
It doesn't get any more accurate or pointed than Dylan's "Masters of War," or "Only a Pawn in Their Game." Dylan just added another trophy - the Nobel - to his shelf, by the way. Not bad for a guy who couldn't get a band in high school. – Tigey4 months ago
This topic would make a great regular column. There's so much ground to cover. Practically limitless, really. – albee4 months ago
Absolutely! I felt this way, but had to put the brakes on. – Lorraine4 months ago
To quote the seagulls from "Finding Nemo, "Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine." This should be fun. – Tigey4 months ago
This would be interesting to hear more about. Many American think of Creedence when it comes to Vietnam "era" music. I would like to know about other pieces that impacted the movement and vice-versa. – dekichan5 days ago
What are the most relevant examples of free speech that has been expressed through creative mediums. Have they perfectly expressed their point or even crossed the line?
Could you be more specific in what you mean by relevant examples? Relevant to what? – LaRose1 year ago
This sounds like it would be a timely topic. I would be interested in pursuing it especially with a view to looking at how comedians have brought about social change and have used political satire to respond to various views expressed by presidential candidates. Donald Trump has certainly challenged and some would say crossed the line in some of his comments. Is this what you had in mind?Also news reporting has become very politically correct in Canada. I regularly watch CNN and am impressed with the well-researched questions asked by various hosts. I have heard Alex Wagner a few time as well as others. In Canada we don't have anyone asking the touch questions and as a result the information conveyed is done in a very shallow and superficial way. At least in America, the topics relating race form a national dialogue.If you could clarify what take you wanted on this topic such as sticking with politics, comedy shows or news reporting, I would be interested in nabbing this topics.Thanks! – Munjeera1 year ago
I think this is an interesting topic, but definitely needs to be narrowed to a more specific instance, as above, otherwise, it could just descend into soapboxing about when free speech is justified. So, this could focus on free speech in comedy (e.g. Louis C.K's Saturday Night Live appearance). I think whoever writes this up needs to qualify what is meant by creative mediums, especially when discussing something like politics, something which is usually confined to the news side of media. – Matthew Sims1 year ago
Very interesting, you could add YouTube for this as well, since it is a creative medium to an extent and you get videos of just about anything. As long as it doesn't violate copyright, it stays up. – SpectreWriter1 year ago
Discuss the rise of image-based social media often portraying stylized images of food, clothing and interiors. Do these portrayals (both seeing them and creating them) allow all of us to become artists, forcing us to appreciate visual beauty in the everyday? Or do they force us to value the narrowly beautiful at the expense of more complex encounters with beauty?
Would you be referring to reality TV here as well? – Munjeera3 weeks ago
Great topic. If everyone has a camera, can everyone therefore claim to be an artist? Are we snapping and sharing photos because beauty has truly resonated with us, or is it because our craving for admiration and likes compels us to capture and share everything we encounter? – bloom2 weeks ago
Wow this is definitely something I have been thinking about lately. Should we need images to appreciate the beauty of these things? Likewise, would we appreciate them if they weren't constantly blogged about/posted online? How are we defining art/beauty? I think the images almost create a barrier between us and experience--As if we are constantly viewing the world through a lens rather than actually being present. – Bfitts2 weeks ago
Brilliant topic: humans as lemmings; objectivity, subjectivity and beauty; the psychology of manipulation; natural vs. man made beauty; etc. – Tigey1 week ago
I feel like I'm in a permanently repeating matrix-world where everyday someone is sharing a new article about the harmful nature of image-based social media... it's exhausting and repetitive. However, as a visual person, the endless stream of perfectly colorful smoothie bowls and fresh-ass clean artistic barber cuts that flood my instagram feed are endlessly awe-inspiring and make me happy. I think the problem is a psychological one with people, not with "art" made in the modern world. – ssudekum7 days ago
Analyze the way George Carlin, in his comedy routine titled "Soft Language", discusses the evolution of language through jargon and euphemisms in daily society and interpret the effects of this evolution over time, beginning with the groundwork laid by Carlin in his 1990 Comedy Special Doin’ It Again and ending with modern day jargon and euphemisms.
This would be interesting to explore in light of current political divisions— how the same idea can be split and reinterpreted in different groups, and called entirely different things. – eleanorstern3 weeks ago
The "Blurred Lines" lawsuit has (pun definitely intended) blurred the lines of how copyright can and should be interpreted and enforced in the popular music world. Popular music of all kinds has for generations been predicated on iteration, from the transmutation of blues into rock and roll, vocal jazz into soul, and on and on. The precedent that a song can be marked as theft because of similar "feel" is one that may cross from a defense of intellectual property into one that has a chilling affect on creative extension of our shared musical heritage (particularly for up and coming musicians who have no resources to fight off a potential copyright claim). How is our culture defining these legal boundaries, and has this process become inherently unfair to those musical artists who are young (ie not in the baby boom generation that notoriously owns much in our copyrighted cultural landscape, since they came up alongside the new mechanical media that enabled mass-marketing of musical works), and without financial resources to defend against such suits? Was "Blurred Lines" genuinely too derivative of Marvin Gaye’s work, or is this a case of judicial overreach?
Using a particular genre of music, like pop, alternative, or folk(etc.), as well as what culture you would be referring to, would be a good way to keep the article on track. The influence of instrumentation, into how this affects an interpretation of similar "feels," could also add another dimension to the article. – BlackLion3 weeks ago
With standardized digital audio production, much music under the "alternative" genre sounds conspicuously similar. Marrying this phenomena with the rise of Creative Class gentrification, and ultimately eclecticism without a sense of roots (see "Rust Belt Chic: The Cleveland Anthology" for more), has indie rock lost itself to indie cred?
What timeline are you looking to focus on? Is this the roots of indie rock being compared to the modern trend "authentic" indie rock? I like the emphasis on audio production and I think that could be really beneficial for showcasing how the genre has become mainstream. I also think that this observation could be compared to "punk rock" and maybe that genre could included, or that could be its own Topic. – John McCracken3 months ago
I referring to the contemporary world of indie rock. Let's say we're comparing the guitar-based, lo-fi sounds of Ty Segall with bands driven by synthesizers and maximal studio instrumentation and production. I like Segall's sound much better, as it doesn't feel like an affectation. I feel like too many bands played on SiriusXMU rely too much on technology and not on honesty, musicianship, and songwriting. – Kyle3 months ago
I would suggest a wariness about the idea that "digital audio production" is the standardizing factor here. A) There are a ton of records made in the digital realm that are done so simply for economic reasons--it's a lot cheaper and easier at this point to work with inexpensive software on computers that most everyone possesses than to work with, say, a 24-track analog tape machine (which I know Segall often favors, but is, at this point in time, an enormously expensive boutique undertaking). B) There are a ton of records made digitally that emphasize so-called lo-fi aesthetic choices in instrumentation, arrangement, and overall production (see: Wolf Eyes, the latest Lightning Bolt, etc). I think the culprit here may be more about the cultural/commercial forces that see "indie rock" as a commodified genre with marketable stylistic tropes, rather than digital audio production itself (and to an extent, about the loss of meaning in the term "indie rock"...much as with "alternative" before it, it has become a sonic style more than a true "independent" category of creation). Digital audio production equipment ist just a toolset, and if you are skilled with the toolset, it doesn't demand or determine what the results are creatively. You can record nasty, one-take, lo-fi stuff into GarageBand or Pro Tools just as easily as on tape (and often for less money). I do think your central thesis relating homogenization of indie rock to creative class gentrification has legs, I'd just be careful about blaming the digital boogieman. – joshloar3 weeks ago
Institutional critique has long since been one of the driving forces in artistic and cultural development. Art responds to what confines it, the biggest culprit being institutional spaces (museums, blue chip galleries, etc). However, it’s also clear to see the value in these places – they offer a mass public a chance to see historically significant art, they allow a chance for education and often engage a community. On the other hand, "alternative" gallery spaces (basement venues, "underground" collectives etc.) arguably provide artists more freedom in what kind of work gets put on display, but there are also drawbacks to this setting too in that it often only meets a niche audience. Weigh the pros and cons of the different ways in which art exists. What is most important in viewing art and putting it on display? What works, what doesn’t and why? What should change? What shouldn’t change?
Interesting topic! ++ I would just add that, as you know, this struggle to build stronger connections between everyday life and everyday people and art has a long history. In the 1930s, in the US and elsewhere, for instance, there was a trend toward mural art—art that was out of the museums and galleries and could be seen and appreciated by everyday people. Another tricky question, and one that I hesitate to bring up, is what counts as "art." Obviously for many art is painting, sculpture, etc. But a wider definition might even include things like sophisticated cosplay as a form of performance art. But the bigger question, which your topic addresses, is how to get more people engaged with the arts no matter how the arts are defined. Having a wider definition of what art is and where it might be experienced can help enrich society in non-monetary ways. – Ben Hufbauer3 months ago
Good topic...personally I believe art should be accessible in numerous venues. There are many museums that offer free or reduced admission for individuals possessing student ID, but for museums that do not, enjoying the arts can be a very costly activity. Art should be visible in every venue...
– danielle5773 weeks ago
It is difficult to define art in concrete terms, since it is very much a subjective field; I do believe that more classical forms of art such as old paintings and marbles work best when presented in a museum setting, while modern pieces such as abstract sculptures and kinetic pieces might achieve maximum effect in a nontraditional venue, i.e. an outdoor space. The most important thing for viewing art, I believe, is placing it in an environment that allows it to be viewed to the best degree, whether it be in a credited museum, or in an underground gallery. – angelofmusic6603 weeks ago
I love this topic because I believe that art can be seen in a variety of ways such as nature or graffiti. – boyerj3 weeks ago