Yep.
Elvis Presley was morally insane.
What was the joke, exactly? Just the name?
It does, as I said in the OP, sound like a goof, an absurd overexaggeration of what an old fogey would think.
Indeed. Part of the TV coverage I saw of the Malheur standoff was a local rancher addressing a public forum; she made it clear that ranchers did have a lot of problems with BLM policies, but they were dealing with it by peaceful organization and dialogue and negotiation with the government, and the Bundys did not speak for them.
Poe’s Law does not apply to fundies alone.
It’s animal music, man! It’s the beat, the beat! It evokes all your primitive atavistic urges to wear leather shorts and swill beer and guzzle borscht and knockwurst and sauerkraut!
The statements so over-the-top that they’re beyond parody combined with the unfortunate way modern slang has appropriated the name struck me as funny. Doubled by the hit from Google that no one of that name existed despite the numerous hits surrounding it. It was a situation so absurd that ordinary comment failed to live up to it.
For my next lecture I will explain the comedy stylings of Dane Cook.
My mind just boggles that he apparently thinks that if the Beatles had just stayed on their side of the pond, there would have been no counterculture, no anti-war movement. Seriously? Has he never heard of Bob Dylan or Simon and Garfunkel?
Wait until he catches up to the 80’s and hears about the Butthole Surfers. Hoo boy.
Back in the late 80’s, when I was a kid living in the heart of Utah, an older gentleman gave a talk at church one Sunday where he basically said exactly what you said there. He described how “the beat” of rock and roll music was engineered by Satan to make humans lose all control and … well, basically do what you described. His example of the latest depravity foisted off on us by Satan was the Disneyland commercial that was playing back then, about how “Disneyland is the heart of the fun, in the warm California sun.”
We all seemed to agree that he was pretty nuts.
No it was Frank Sinatra. Or wait, Johnnie Ray. Nope, that’s not right either. It all started with Nelson Eddy.
Further research shows it was Thag, who added a back beat and hip gyrations to the only true music, i.e., beating on a rock with a stick.
Yeah, I’ve found it’s really quite common to hear older guys talk about (pick one: Hank Williams / Pete Seeger / Frank Sinatra) as being the best musical era, with everything after the late 1950s being total horseshit. Most of them are making an aesthetic judgment rather than a moral judgment on society, but it’s not a huge leap from one to the other.
Every generation seems to have 'em. When I was growing up there were a few old folks who thought FDR was a secret Communist who was heading the country toward socialism…even though he’d been dead for two decades.
Without regard to the fundamentalist stuff, the Beatles had a reputation that certainly tended to glamorize illegal drug use, particularly hallucinogenics. While this can’t be pinned on them exclusively it was a huge problem at the time. I can certainly understand the “straight” society apprehension and in retrospect certainly seems justified.
The drug associations came late in their career, long after the accusations that they were destroying civilization. The record burnings that occurred in 1966 were in response to John’s comment that they were bigger than Jesus, e.g.
Of all the 60s’ groups, I’d say the Beatles had one of the straightest reputations with regard to drugs until around 1970, and by then every rock group was flaunting drugs so heavily that the Beatles actually felt left behind.
Wait…they interviewed Starving Artist?
Not jazz completely, but I knew a girl in college who told me about rock having some secret rhythms that change your emotions, and while she was mostly talking about modern music, she mentioned listening to some sleazy jazz that made her feel lust, which thus meant it had to be evil. (So I guess that’s why her being a classical pianists is okay)
I tried my best to explain it was just that she associated that music with certain situations, but she would have none of it. She’d been homschooled by a long line of people with these types of beliefs, and took that one “experiment” as proof.
But they broke up in 1970.
McCartney made big headlines in June, 67 when he admitted he had done LSD. Which got Lennons goat because Paul had been the most reticent and last to try it, and then had them all answering for his tongue.
To me it was the depth and quality of the music, mixed with the drug culture that they were avatars for, that made them so threatening. Burnouts and junkies without talent aren’t a threat.