Ode to 1967: both hip and square

The year 1967 was … magi-… no, color- … true but not quite capturing the spirit of the time … wild, not really … weird, a bit.  Looking back at that year through a 50-year-old music festival documentary, the summer of ’67 was whimsical.  The Beatles had just released Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band—an album so profound and extraordinary, referred to in the annals of pop music as the band’s masterpiece—which was played full length repeatedly on radio all over the country.  Then they released All You Need is Love, and those words set the tone for the Summer of Love.  But a musical moment in California captured, presented and preserved the times as they were lived by those who would (as opposed to those who wouldn’t).  Monterrey International Pop Festival captures a moment in time: when music and culture united in peace, harmony and love.

The festival was one weekend in June near San Francisco.  The movie opens with a young girl gushing on camera about a ‘love in,’ expecting to experience the highest high with all the great bands performing on one stage.  Countering her naïve enthusiasm, a police chief expresses dire concern with the possibility of the ‘Hell’s Angels,’ then he corrects himself to say ‘the hippies,’ coming in droves to camp out in this idyllic community.  The logistics were dubious.  The town would run out of food in one day.  A lot could go wrong with a gathering of so many people—and by people he meant ‘freaks.’  Yet everything, as far as the camera lens shows, went beautifully.

It was a groovy summer for all those hippies wearing flowers in their hair out in San Francisco.  A lot of America’s young people were heading West for sun and fun and endless summer or so they envisioned.  Frisco is cold at night, no place to be walking around in bare feet.  Ah, but the Monterrey Festival was spread out on an endless green lawn.  The film by D.A. Pennebaker, featuring several songs by The Mamas and The Papas, is a perfect time capsule for everyone who missed the concert—and the dawn of a new era.

A heavy happening

The film records the throngs of hippies coming together to set up the festival.  Spotted on the sidelines are major performing artists like Janis Joplin, the girl singer for Big Brother & the Holding Company.  At the time American radio had not heard of her or her unique gravelly power-tooled Texas drawl.  She killed at Monterrey with a Big Mama Thornton blues song called Ball ‘n’ Chain.  The band matches Joplin’s vocal audacity with an electric guitar lead that pierces the ears and the heart.  During the performance, Pennebaker holds the camera on Mama Cass, sitting front row and obviously blown away by the new vocal talent.

Simon and Garfunkel perform songs from their hit movie of 1967, The Graduate.  Also performing were: Otis Redding, The Byrds, Jefferson Airplane, The Association, The Animals, Canned Heat, The Who, and The Jimi Hendrix Experience—another first-time performer before a huge live American audience.  While Hendrix concludes his version of Wild Thing—featuring a one-handed tribute to Sinatra’s Strangers in the Night—he lights his guitar on fire and throws it against the amps until it’s torn apart then tosses the pieces to the audience.  The camera catches some audience reaction of confusion and disgust with the antics … soon to be standard at hard rock concerts.

The multicultural performance comes from Ravi Shankar, the famous Indian sitar player who performs a morning raga.  As the strange twangs are heard mid morning, the camera pans slowly across the audience, all sitting attentive and well behaved in a sea of metal chairs.  Hey, is that Ann-Margret?  Look, it’s Jimi Hendrix seriously digging the sitar.  There’s Micky Dolenz!  Some in the audience meditate; some study the music, listening to every note of the performing ensemble classically featuring the drone of the tambura and the quick rhythmic accents from the tabla.  A few along the outskirts gyrate to the sexy Eastern beat.  One man stands alone in the congregation violently shaking his body as if casting out a demon.  Shankar looks his most virile, handsome, full of health and vitality, sitting on the stage with one leg crossed over his lap, his bare foot moving to the musical ebullience on which he is elaborating.  For twenty minutes, the energetic music builds slowly but surely, ending with a dizzying visual of Shankar’s incredible multi-strumming, impossible to the naked eye.  Yet there it is, captured on film.

Other showstoppers are Country Joe and Fish improvising on psychedelic rock, with a very young Peter Frampton playing his signature licks on guitar, and jazz fusionist Hugh Masekela performing a piece with a title translating to mean Healing Song.  Opening with African conga beats, the jazz begins as Masekela screams in what seems to be gibberish, shouting out to connect with Mother Africa or Mother God.  Who knows?  The complex percussion and congas beat fiercely while the brass clash loudly.  Then the music changes mood for serenity and calm, a young white guy in the audience smiles and nods, really digging it.

Mayberry USA

In contrast to the counterculture or the hippie movement, America was still very Squaresville.  This can be best determined by thumbing through the pages of many a high school yearbook, where guys’ hair is clean cut and above the ears and girls’ hairdos are bouffant and sprayed.  Think My Three Sons because that was America in 1967.  The pop festival makes it out like everyone was wearing long straight hair, little or no makeup, feathers, flowers, lace, granny glasses and thrift store clothes.  Long hair on guys was a sign of protest against the Vietnam War and the draft.

Another way to determine America at that time would be by turning the TV channel dial.  Number one was The Andy Griffith Show followed by The Lucy Show, both in or soon to be in color.  Color was a BIG development in TV.  The change to color film coincided with fashion combinations that a decade earlier would have turned stomachs: yellow and purple, red and orange, all colors swirled together.

Psychedelic was the word for the new fashions in swirled colors.  It also was a drug reference.  LSD—that drug that makes colors heard and sounds visible—was influential in the changing color schemes, tasteful or not.  The drug had been legal for decades and seriously used in psychotherapy especially among creative people.  Somehow it got into the public and was regularly consumed for recreation by a lot of youth in the late 1960s.  LSD wasn’t made an illegal narcotic until 1966.  But the genie was out of the bottle, so the effects were well known or going to be among America’s middle class.

Another way to fully understand 1967 would be to check the box office.  The number one movie was the violent Bonnie & Clyde.  Other top movies were not near as bloody yet reveal a growing unrest and dissatisfaction among young people with middle class mores and expectations: The Graduate, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Cool Hand Luke, In the Heat of the Night.  This in combination with the number one pop music hit of 1967, To Sir With Love, cast a calm if not ordinary perspective on the times.  But another huge hit was the dark mesmerizing Ode to Billie Joe.  Along with pop hits such as Windy, I’m a Believer, and Somethin’ Stupid, the year could be deemed as ‘suppressed contradictions’ to following generations.

Kind of a drag

The whole ’60s era in modern minds is 1967.  But it wasn’t.  In many respects, 1967 wasn’t 1967.  Within the national population, a small but multiplying number of young people, mostly residing in major cities and college educated, were hip to the times and willing to experiment with drugs, follow Eastern religion, and participate in alternative lifestyles like communes or living together unmarried.

The theme of the year came, naturally, from a very important song by The Beatles: All you need is love.  And for a time, a very brief time historically speaking, quite a few young Americans were able to love their way through life.  And in so doing, they experienced total bliss, were unencumbered by responsibilities and obligations, happy just to do their own thing of which music was the major focus.  Life should be total joy.  But soon the drugs wore off, adulthood sunk in, duty called.  American hippies grew up.  Most can count their blessings they evaded addiction, overdose, arrest and prison.

Monterrey Pop indicates its own carefree moment will be brief as the camera strolls through festival booths and spots a sick, lonely and conspicuously overdressed Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones—his fate ominous.  Modern audiences watch performers like Joplin, Hendrix and members of Canned Heat from the perspective of their fate: death by overdose, death at a young age, death from foolishness, totally accidental deaths.  Whimsy, then, is best lived for a day or two, a fond experience on which to reminisce, like watching Monterrey Pop.

This is our brains on smart phones

By now there are scads of research on how our constant use of smart phones, cell phones with internet access, are affecting our behavior, perhaps causing an addiction, and certainly transforming our family relations and society.  It may be technology overload, but many people cannot wait to read their emails or texts, delve into Facebook, or check the internet for the latest terrorist attack or national controversy.  We have been living in the Information Age for more than one generation, and there is ample research to indicate the human brain is impacted: whether it’s checking emails or news updates every few minutes while carrying on conversations over dinner or becoming engrossed in e-chat or an e-article at work … or worse while driving.

Did you see the woman who, while on her smart phone and walking a loud city street, fell right into a manhole?  What about young people listening to music from their ear buds while crossing busy streets?  God gave us several senses for a reason, if not for mere self preservation.  Maybe licenses should be issued in order to use smart phones while walking in public.  How many more people on smart phones have to injure themselves or others?

There was the news report about kids getting easily bored and restless as their parents habitually check out the latest on their smart phones, the little kids referring to them as ‘dumb phones.’  Pretty clever.  Though yet aged enough to be articulate, the kids perceived their parents’ smart phone interest as disinterest in the lives of their own children.  So when kids get to be a certain age, many parents simply give them smart phones, too.  What a big happy.

Call you back

Remember those public service announcements about fifteen years ago promoting a non-tech night or family night whereby everyone shuts off all cell phones and laptops—to spend quality time together?  What happened to those family-centered ads?  There is a generation now unaware that once there was a societal suggestion to turn off the technology especially at night.  Now kids are growing up thinking ‘the family that techs together stays together’—like our technology keeps us all connected; better connected than ever before in human history; instantaneously connected; so much preferable to the old fashioned phone call, typed or hand-written letter, or car ride to grandma.

From what I’ve seen and experienced, having the internet in the palm of my hand has had a detrimental effect on relationships.  Yet I would not want to live without it.  I can turn it off, and I do before bed.  But some people don’t turn off the internet in their hands, leaving their minds to obsess over the latest news or gossip.  Gotta know what’s going on all the time everywhere.  Kids have been known to actually sleep with a cell phone under their pillow, sometimes found to be the source of a fire in the middle of the night.

I was slow to join Facebook, not ever liking the way I look, unwilling to mug at the camera every so often to post an update.  I know I’m aging.  Why would I want everyone in the world to witness the graying, wrinkling, and additional pounds?  But the best thing for me to come from Facebook is finding old classmates and acquaintances, even reuniting with them in person.  That is indeed a fun part of our modern times.  It is particularly interesting to see that some couples who married right out of high school still celebrating anniversaries decades later.  That is quite a surprise, statistically speaking.

There are, too, the sad reports of battling cancer and other crises.  There are the ones who air dirty laundry and shouldn’t on Facebook.  There are those who simply re-post some inspirational quip or informative and cute video found online.  As a writer, that inclination to re-post what another has written or taped makes no sense.  How often have I been sucked into good writing about cancer or whatever topic only to find myself thinking after the first few sentences, “There is no way this person wrote this?”  So I scroll on in hopes of finding original posts, which is becoming rarer by the day.

Brainstorm

“60 Minutes” investigated how individual smart phone use is monitored.  Big Brother, so to speak, collects data on our news and shopping interests which we pursue on our devices—and then hooks us into similar articles to read and things to buy.  That is in the end the purpose of smart phones, loaded with information and constantly updated for which we pay virtually nothing other than a phone bill or cable/internet bundle.  We have to wade through the ads, handpicked just for us to lure us into buying stuff, in order to read what we want when we want … which is now.

Studies are showing that smart phones not only are addictive but create a short attention span, and this is exactly what students in school and college do not need.  Multi tasking is actually impossible.  The human brain handles very well only one (1) task at a time, not two, three, four or five.  The latest brain research shows that whenever we start doing more than one thing at the same time, the quality of each task is greatly reduced (talking on the phone, reading emails, typing, driving).  Instead of giving one hundred percent of our effort and attention to one task, we are divvying up the brain which itself determines the reduction: perhaps ten percent email comprehension, fifty percent conversation participation, twenty percent recipe following, and so on.  We don’t decide the quality division; the brain does.

The brain is more Buddhist than we’d like to acknowledge.  Is there really a difference between the brain and the mind?  Maybe they are the same.  In that regard, mindfulness—total concentration on one thing at a time—truly is the only way to a happy and productive life, one lived and enjoyed to full measure, every thought and especially every human emotion recalled in clarity and satisfaction.  Smart phones may be turning our nation and world into a bunch of walking zombies: people who think their brains are growing due to all the recently accumulated knowledge and stuff but are really intellectually stunted, cluttered with confusion, unable to determine truth from lies, emotionally overwhelmed, and left wondering where did all the time go.

Mess with the Bull, you get the horns

Dear Kathy Griffin:

So, you think you went too far in the realm of macabre comedy stunts, huh?  I’ve seen funnier than Trump’s bloody decapitated head.  Yawn.  But the thing about free speech imagery is it’s best not to offend tens of millions of people, well tens of millions of Americans.  And that’s what you did, girlfriend!  As your stunt picture was taking shape, you even conceded you and your photographer would have to leave the country.  And Trump, well he has totally lost his sense of humor since becoming president.   And it’s funny, for someone who relishes free speech ad nauseam, he sure is willing to release the hounds to rip the head off anyone who would dare besmirch him.  [Pssst, “Frontline” did a recent report theorizing that Trump ran for president because of a comedic remark by President Obama who smugly declared Trump would never be called President.]

Famous comedians and entertainers like you whose purpose is to rebel rouse, and as you put it ‘push the envelope,’ should expect a one-time public scorning.  Take Joan Rivers, your dearly departed comedic mentor.  She went through an awful period in the 1980s where she could not get a job.  Her situation was not really based on her loud bawdy comedy—a little too much goading of Liz Taylor for her weight, as I recall—but more of the cut-throat entertainment industry.  The word was Johnny Carson had her banned or had put out a bad word on her, and she was history for a long time until she decided to step back into her high heels and take the bull by the horns.  She remade herself into the comic legend we fondly revere today.

Take the Dixie Chicks and that remark in front of a London audience after 9/11 when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq—two undeclared wars that would last longer than Vietnam, still ongoing in many respects, end in countless ruined lives and deaths and lifelong misery and suffering especially among our young men, and cost about a billion dollars a day at one point, all funded off the books.  But I digress.  Before singing a Texas song, Natalie Maines remarked that the Chicks were “ashamed” the President was from Texas.

Heavens to Betsy, all hell broke out!  Remember?  First, the Dixie Chicks, the hottest country-crossover girl band ever, were banned from country radio nationwide.  Fans were tossing their CDs.  Then the hate mail and death threats came a-pouring in, among the letters one that strongly advised the lady entertainers to just ‘shut up and sing.’  They posed nude on the cover of a major news magazine, their bodies painted with the hateful words and common female epithets from those irate letters.  It was a scary time, especially for proponents of free speech.  Anti-war speech was suddenly verboten.  Lenny Bruce and George Carlin would have taken the right all the way to the Supreme Court.  Nothing to fear but fear, I can hear them say from the Great Mike in the Sky.  But … they were men, not women.  Female entertainers face a more dangerous reality when it comes to personal safety.

And let’s not forget the most important comedian blackballed from late night TV: Bill Maher—again, his ordeal having to do with post 9/11 puffed-up patriotism.  During his political comedy show’s roundtable discussion, he talked about the terrorists being called ‘cowards’ by the president.  He thought aloud that anyone who would drive a plane into a building could be called many things but not a coward—not that the terrorists were brave but that as humans universally fear death, men who would knowingly commit suicide to attack America and Americans were not cowards, in Maher’s mind meaning afraid of death.

Snap.  Oh how our national outrage hit the fan!  Maher was out on his can within hours.  His show was funny, thought provoking and cutting edge.  But our nation at the time was sorely wounded and humiliated and was not about to let some so-called comic slander America or our President’s use of wordery like referring to terrorists as cowards.  The good news is Bill Maher returned in full form where he belongs … on cable TV, where he can say whatever the ef he wants.  And I believe he never apologized for trying to correct the adjective used by President Bush when describing suicidal terrorists.  Did anyone ever get the point that Maher was not taking up for the terrorists or praising them or calling them brave?  No, no one ever considered his thought on the subject of word use and meaning.  The network suits and political pressure cut off his head, so to speak.

I know what you were probably thinking when you participated in that gruesome photo stunt.  Surely you and your photographer saw the cover of Der Spiegel shortly after Trump took over as president?  The image on the German political magazine was of an animated Trump holding the bloody head cut off the Statue of Liberty.  It was a political statement, perhaps not satirical but a realistic European view of the new U.S. President, their concerns that his leadership may threaten democracy in America and abroad.  Very little uproar came from that image, one that surely went viral.

You were thinking along those lines, right?  Maybe trying to say something about Trump has gone so far in his agenda that he’s setting himself up for assassination, or that a lot of people worldwide would like to see him dead?  So you used the image of a beheading because that’s what the terrorists have been doing for years now, uploading  each one online?  That our free speech rights and guaranteed freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being jeopardized by the Trump agenda?  Am I getting anything close to the intent of your editorial photo, not unlike an editorial cartoon?

Well, most people took one look at your picture holding a fake bloody Trump head and immediately freaked out.  It was too real, especially in these dangerous times.  It’s a real possibility that many people the world over have envisioned: Trump’s assassination, his death perhaps in the hope and manner of the Middle East terrorists.  Americans can take a good joke, bawdy, brazen, truthful, politically honest and culturally insightful.  Perhaps your political imagery should have included a short comment so everyone would have understood your point in such a photo.   Instead, you just shocked the hell ought of everyone, well mostly Americans.

There is a price to pay for free speech, isn’t there?  Everyone isn’t going to like everything you say and do.  But you still have the right to make a political statement, violently bloody or not, just like Der Spiegel does every week over there in Germany, several knocking Trumpian philosophy.  For now, take a break from the comedy circuit.  Lay low, just for a little while, like many of your fellow comedians of the past.  [Oh, I forgot all about Roseanne Barr singing the national anthem all off key and crudely at a televised major league baseball game.]  When it comes to entertainers, the American public is fickle and in time always forgiving (if not forgetting).