Reaction to Dylan

First and foremost, I love Bob Dylan. I have seen him in concert so many times that I have lost count. What's interesting about this excerpt in The Portable Sixties Reader is that I actually heard Dylan play "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" when I saw him at the University of Pittsburgh a few years back. I remebered listening to that song a lot on his "The times they are a changin'" album but I never realized what it meant. I had no idea that the song was about an actual historical event. I can just hear him speak the words like a poem......

I also want to point out how wonderful a writer Dylan is. He writes descriptively, personally and in a matter-of-fact tone. It seems appropriate that he didn't wrap himself up in writing about current events because I do not think that he would have taken so seriously. His words are powerful and carry a lot of meaning, but they aren't forceful like CSNY's lyrics are. I think that Dylan is definitely one of the forerunners of socially consciouos lyrics of the sixties and seventies and maybe even still today.

Now that the song carries new meaning for me, I will have to listen to it in a new light.

Reaction to Woodstock (the movie)

Usually I would post my blog about the reading from the weekend but I want to take the time out right now to pay some homage to the movie, Woodstock. Watching the movie made the event REAL for me; the masses of people, the need for food and water, the filth, the drugs and the music. I had no idea what 300,000 people looks like crowded in a random field in New York. It was unreal to see how many people were on the roadways in attempts to get to the festival. What I also didn't know is how utterly filthy it was there, especially after the rain! It was really nasty to see some of those people just lay in the dirt and mud like it was nothing! As far as the drug scene is concerned....everyone was high!! But, it is interesting to note how peaceful it was there despite the fact that everyone was on some kind of drug, at some kind of intensity. I really thought that was cool. I loved the music! It was awesome to see CSNY on stage back then and compare it to them on stage now. Back then, it seemed like they were doing the whole music thing on stage for its beauty. Now, it is much more mainstream, even instituitionalized! Jimi Hendrix was GROOVY too!! I thought that watching the movie was a good way to better understand the magnitude and reality of the music festival!

Reaction to Barthelme

In "The Police Band", I found it very interesting how subtle the drug references were. Barthelme tells the story about a group of individuals whose "efficacy will be demonstrated in due time" under the instruction of the mayor who, "took a little pill from the box". Later on, he writes about how the mayor "had a little drug problem of his own". It is so strange to me that the author insists on the mayor, a man of authority, has a drug problem. In today's society, if we found out that a person in a position like the mayor's had some kind of connection, it would be a huge deal. It would be all over the media and every news source around. Yet here, it is so nonchalantly spoken about. As the mayor sneaks some pills here or there, it is not a focus of the essay. Since I am reading it from a 2009 perspective, it is not so nonchalant to me. It was the first thing that grabbed my attention.

It is very interesting to note how attitudes toward drugs have changed so much since the 1960's and 1970's. Its not to say that mayor's and presidents all over the U.S. today don't do drugs, it is just that they hide it. Also today, people in those authoritative positions focus more on infidelities then they do on thier drug use! Forty years ago, it was all just part of the experience!

Reaction to Andrew Gordon

This story was pretty 'groovy'! It really shows how social drugs can be within a society. Whether it is because people are gathering together to break the law or that they all want to kick back and reach a higher state, they all have something in common. Weed especially, is a drug that you do with other people. You call your friends up, they bring some friends, and you all get high together. What is interesting about it is that you can smoke with anybody. They don't necessarily have to be your friend, or even someone you know. It could just be someone that wants to get high, just like yourself. That's how this author felt. Although he had so much in common with Pynchon, he did not find it absolutely necessary to share those feelings with him. He was happy 'communicating' through the drugs. It is interesting how drug use in the sixties still remains true today. People continue to smoke weed communally as a way of communicating. It is a means of nonverbal interaction between everyone involved.

Reaction to Alexie

This story about a Native American family wrapped around music, shows how influential some periods of people's lives can really be. I found it really interesting to hear a Native Americans point of view about Woodstock because it is the first time the thought of it crossed my mind. It made me shiver when he talked about influential Jimi Hendrix is. He relied on the music to get him through arguments, sad times, and places in his life that he felt alone. I couldn't believe how improtant The Star Spangled Banner was to him. But it makes sense. The song really carrys so much connotation; peace, war, love, hate, freedom, unity and America. I could only imagine the energy from the crowd when he played this! It makes me want to listen to this song!

A little off subject, it was really creepy when the author spoke about listening to his parent's lovemaking and enjoying it. It was strange how he would think about Jimi Hendrix while they made love.

Reaction to Goines

Goines' essay, "From the Free Speech Movement", he describes his arrest at Berkley after a peaceful demonstration. What I found interesting is how uniform and united the whole group of students were. Even though they denied the rules and regulations that society, and especially the police, had for them, they created thier own and followed them. Their rules were very explicit and detailed, addressing every situation that they would be faced with as demonstrators. This really shows how wholesome and unified these people were. Everyone looked out for each other and didn't always do things in thier own best interest. I really like this concept. I feel like the rules of today reflect the selfishness of our society. For example, if a bunch of kids got pulled over and had some drugs in the car, most likely nobody would fess up to it. As a result, whoever owned the car would be responsible for the drugs. This happens all the time. If this were to happen in Berkeley, I think that everyone would claim the drugs so that one person alone doesn't get the hit. The hippies were much more focused on community then we are today. Also, I thought thier songs and thier lyrics really showed how they were a unified group of people who were trying to better thier lives. These people demonstrated to better everyone's life, not just the people at Berkeley. It is an interesting concept, I just don't understand why people today can't bend more towards community and the good of all instead of just themselves. We are very much a selfish soceity!

Reaction to Kampf's Song

Richard Kamps's, "Hey Mr. Newsman" is an interesting depiction of how journalists treated the hippies. It basically says that they are more focused on the hippies long hair, dirty clothes, strange style, and their free spirits then they are on what these kids were fighting for. This brings up a good point because it seems like society was less interested with the causes the hippies were fighting because of who they were. The History Channel movie that we are watching in class also shows how the hippies were just disregarded and often times not taken seriously as a subculture. The Reporters talk about their long hair and how unconventional it is, instead of reporting on the what of the argument. I wonder if the hippies didn't distinguish themselves physically as a group, would society have taken them more seriously? Would they have been heard? Or is it that the hippies had to distinguish themselves to be heard? Whatever the reason, the hippies fought for causes that were almost all worth fighting. If it weren't for this counterculture, would we even have civil rights? Equality?