Is MUSIC used as a propaganda/mind-control tool?

[jaytotale]

.

[nonhocapito]

I think music also helps a lot with the standardisation of culture. It creates subcultures, like punks, hippies, disco bunnies (or the 'Disco Sucks' movement), New Age, goths, that can keep people occupied from the age of about 10 to 35. It makes you feel connected to a source, to a network that doesn't really exist. It plays its role in democracy as a scientific dictatorship.

I agree. I think we don't really have a grasp anymore of what creativity could be like before culture was mass produced and globally distributed. Under a global, standardized, celebrity-centered, handed-down culture the degrees of creative freedoms are not enhanced like we tend to think, but rather significantly reduced. It matters little what we find enjoyable, because humanity under limiting conditions can find anything enjoyable. Truth is, it has become very hard or impossible for completely self-grown and inventive creative individuals to appear on a scene whose characteristic are defined technically, separated in "genres", deeply linked to the concept of "market" etcetera. Nobody is that free anymore.

The musical "trends" and all they represent, not just in the tunes themselves but in lifestyle, fashion, family relations etc, work in a very similar way to public, mandatory school.
On one hand, they fight a certain degree of ignorance: a youngster cannot go through life anymore without being exposed to a certain degree of "liberating" "emancipating" tools that she or he can grasp and use with relative ease; on the other hand, they limit enormously the incredible diverseness and versatility of the human brain. It is a proven fact that any kid who start going to elementary school very quickly stops drawing in a creative, individual, original way, and start instead to try and draw "like everyone else". How much is lost in that moment? Possibly, entire universes of potential human experience.

I think we have to ask ourselves this: What has been and is the principal motivation to do music and be involved in the lifestyle, for the young people especially? Is it really to be "diverse" and each individually creative? Or is it rather to be like the others, accepted and 'with' the others, or, at best, on "top" of the others (which means finding a way to give them what they might want, regardless whether it is beautiful or makes the world a better place?)

I know, I know there are exceptions: but it is legit to try and define a mass phenomena in general: one that seem to have raised a lot of interest among the same criminal and control freaks who forge, fake and distort our day-to-day perception of the world.

[Euphoria]

as the internet has marginalised the record industry somewhat although I presume the radio stations still spew out their daily garbage due to 'Playlists'.

Yes, even in the Internet age, obvious perp-backed artistes such as Lady Gaga and Katy Perry still seem to find their way to front of the queue when it comes to media attention.

You mentioned John Peel. Well this is what I mean. Wasn't John known for his one-night stand with Germaine Greer?! I loved Marc Bolan and T Rex, the band he introduced to the world, but unfortunately even Marc played a role in pushing the whole bisexual, androgynous image. The songs were good but it seems there is always a price to pay, if you want to get in with 'the right people.' He was also very into extraterrestials, space travel, reincarnation, and Tolkien-esque folktales which in my opinion reflects the disinfo package that the artists were required to sell in that early 70s era (Bowie was similar).

[fbenario]

One sign or test of ‘real’ or what I call ‘pure’ music is that it can be translated to any instrument: play Bach on a kazoo (if you can!) and it’ll still work, because the melodic lines are rich and combine to form coherent phrases. Like having an intelligent conversation, the music asks questions and answers them - with no help at all from video, lyrics, or ‘righteous anger’...just crotchets and quavers.

I think you may be overstating your case a little bit. The "real" artists and musicians of long ago - Leonardo, Michelangelo, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and on and on - got their funding from the rich and powerful individuals of their day (kings, royal families, popes), extremely similarly to today's rockers getting their funding from huge media corporations run by the rich and powerful individuals of today. If those "greats" of the past displeased their paymasters they would get no more commissions, and so by definition neither those "greats" of the past, NOR THEIR MUSIC, is any more trustworthy than the greats of today, and their music.

Further, I don't believe it is legitimate, or appropriate, to theorize that because the world still listens to Mozart centuries later, his music is thus somehow greater or more important.

You really want to bet that The Stones won't be listened to in a century?

Red Hot Chili Peppers, in the 1999 song Californication.

Space may be the final frontier
But it's made in a Hollywood basement

[nonhocapito]

Further, I don't believe it is legitimate, or appropriate, to theorize that because the world still listens to Mozart centuries later, his music is thus somehow greater or more important.
You really want to bet that The Stones won't be listened to in a century?

You are probably right, fbenario, the Stones will be listened to a century from now, and rightfully so. And you are also right, most of those great artists of the past were more or less forced to please their masters, a bit similarly (but with important differences) as to what the musicians of today have to do to please their labels and public. The differences being in that, back then, there was no "market": all Beethoven had to do was to dedicate his music to some monarch, or write an occasional celebratory piece every now and then.

I disagree about putting the Stones on the same level as Mozart of Beethoven, as I am a bit of a reactionary in arts: but this isn't really relevant. In the last 200 years everything has changed so much in art and culture that I consider it simply impossible to compare these things properly. Anyone who knows classical music in all its depth (and I am not one of those) probably knows that the world it contains is incredibly complex -- and as such it requires a much, much deeper knowledge, artistic sensibility, focused mind, than the superficial listener thinks: but it would be foolish to think that back in Beethoven times everyone among the riches who would listen to his music had the ability to understand it. They most likely did not, just like us, albeit they probably fared a little better since they were also educated to play that music with an instrument.

Nonetheless. I think something has changed radically: the ability of music to shape and guide mass culture. This is were the invention of the so called "rock" or "pop" music played a role that goes beyond its artistic value, I think, and as such it must have been important, if not to invent it, at least to guide it.

[HappyCynic]

Music naturally, it's the quickest way to influence. I know you've seen this before but I'll post it anyway [Youtube]watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM[/Youtube]
I also wanted to share my experience with Vigilant Citizen and 911. I know I sound off but I wanted to get a reaction from them because I was just bored I guess. I am "listen" and I know my facts are 'off' but I didn't care and was looking for a reaction from anyone.
listen says:

March 7, 2012 at 8:55 am

All of the 911 videos are fake…what really happened is they evacuated the area, put up a literal smokescreen, took down the EMPTY buildings in old fashion demo….the rest,and the fake videos, were meant to scare us into supporting them making new controlling laws and taking over that area in the middle east. No planes or victims just a few actors and fake vids. The CIA was working in the news studios & that was even in the news.

2

Reply


Fleurdamour says:

March 7, 2012 at 1:07 pm

I was on the Staten Island ferry on 9/11 and saw the whole thing. It was NOT fake.

2

Reply


listen says:

March 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm

I’m curious, what did you see? Thanks.

1





Fleurdamour says:

March 7, 2012 at 4:09 pm

I was fiddling with my cellphone and missed the first plane, but I saw the second plane hit, the enormous fireball, debris exploding and raining out over Lower Manhattan, etc. It was not a controlled demolition, it was a kamikaze run. And re: 7 World Trade which a lot of people especially argue about, I have been in that building because the company I worked for at the time had offices in several buildings in that area and our tax dept was in 7. That was an administrative back-office type of building rather than a client services one and it was absolutely stuffed full of paper, rows and rows of filing cabinets. Debris from the Twin Towers fell on its roof, it was a much smaller building right across a narrow street from the north Tower, and smoldered there for hours. Finally, when the wreckage burned its way through the roof, it quickly ignited the top floors, which then collapsed and pancaked down. All that paper fed an absolute inferno.

3





listen says:

March 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

I’m sorry but WTC7 isn’t across the street or near WTC2 (north tower).
7 buildings were destroyed that day.
Silverstein sayed they ‘pulled’ WTC7
All the imagry was faked.

3





Fleurdamour says:

March 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm

Yes it was, it was so close there was a walkway over the street linking 7wtc to the twin towers plaza, right where the old IRS office was. It was at the very bottom of Greenwich street.

1





Fleurdamour says:

March 8, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Wow. My purpose is that I was an eyewitness to the actual events of 9/11 and I don’t like having my experience denied by people who weren’t there. It’s abusive to deny someone’s reality, and watching that attack was a devastating reality. It’s horrible to realize that you’ve just seen a bunch of people die, and I think it’s very insulting to those people and their families to carry on with the falsehood that 9/11 was not real. I wonder why people want so much to believe that it was faked, when if that were actually true it would mean that things are so much worse than they already are. I do think that there are a lot of things in this country that happen behind the scenes, are staged, are set up to benefit a small handful of people, etc., but I don’t happen to think 9/11 was one of them. I DO think that certain people didn’t waste one second using it as an excuse to set up a black ops apparatus and to start churning out profits for their military-industrial financial interests, like the Bush family and the Carlyle group and Cheney and Halliburton. I think the American people have been cheated in those ways and by having to deal with things like intrusive body scanners at the airport. If you don’t believe me about the location of the old 7 WTC building, don’t take my word for it, use Google maps or talk to someone else who lived in NYC around that time. I knew that area really well because I used to live in Battery Park City and then on Staten Island, and I commuted through there all the time. And re: “pancaking,” that’s the widely-used term to describe the flattening movement as a building collapses from the top. The weight brings the whole thing down when the internal support structure is compromised. The steelworkers themselves who put up the Towers said that corners were cut in the construction to save money and they were not surprised that it went down.

1






Fleurdamour says:

March 8, 2012 at 3:23 pm

PS – Actually, you don’t have to look any further than Wikipedia – scroll down to the section “The original 7 World Trade Center (1983–2001)” and the two photos show the exact location of 7 WTC. It’s the reddish building right across Vesey Street from the North Tower. The photo on the right shows the walkway I was talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

1

Reply


listen says:

March 9, 2012 at 8:27 am

I don’t question where building 7 was. I question the news footage/images/that days tv witnesses. TpTb have it in their own paperwork that they needed a ‘new pearl harbor’ including fake memorials. I’m sorry if you’re offended by that. I’m still curious as to what you actually saw in real life

0





Fleurdamour says:

March 9, 2012 at 2:21 pm

My last two comments were mostly directed at another commenter, who has since been moderated away. Please see my second comment above for what I saw on 9/11. And you did state above that 7 WTC was not near the North Tower, so I wanted to correct that. It was right across the street.

0

Back to cluesforum and me now.....they deleted one of my comments that said something like,"why lie, what is your purpose" then they responded with the WOW comment...here is a link the the page http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/c ... 85#respond I'm sorry I'm I'm doing it wrong..just wanted to share info. Thanks.

[HappyCynic]

I have to add that even though i am so picky about the music the kids hear it is on the bus if not the busdriver playing it the kids have ishits and whatnot. Then they go into the classroom and they get a history lesson on video produced by JayZs people..no joke I wish I had a link...They showed me and it cheezy and false. Thank God my girls saw how weak it was. My kids have seen movies weekly as a 'treet' for I don't know what or why. They also get candy weekly for doing nothing. The cafe has a tv so the kids will be quiet I guess?! and they have to hold their hands behind their back and mouths in a bubble they call pax as they walk down the hall. I just don't remember that being a problem. The only time I saw a tv is when that teacher blew up going to the moon and a tv was brought in so we could watch that right after we gargled the green stuff to fight cavities...many tiny cups on trays.
I'd rather live in the woods with zero eletricity at this point. Some keys and a guitar would be nice but we would survive.
Mitch Matrix I don't think you read what I was saying...as sloppy as it was.

[HappyCynic]

I don't mean to derail conversations. I'm sorry. Just didn't know where to put the babble and wanted to share info because I believe some here would be fairly interested and understanding.

[jaytotale]

.

[reel.deal]

Pixies vs Goldfrapp vs Puccini - Monkey Gone To Opera

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hDei-zm92s

[figuringitout]

You really want to bet that The Stones won't be listened to in a century?

[/quote]

It wouldn't surprise me if they were being listened too a hundred years from now. Which I find problematic in itself as regards the 'official' history of The Stones.

I've read a few books on the Stones recently. It's not hard to read between the lines and see what a manipulated group they were from day one. By all accounts the 'talented' musician in the band was Brian Jones. It's been said he could play pretty much any instrument within an hour of being given it, and while that statement likly contains an element of hyperbole there's little doubt that he was a superior musician to Richards and Jagger (Jagger not even being a musician to put it bluntly).

Of course the Stones found fame initially as a cover band. Their first single (or one of their first) was actually written by Lennon-McCartney. The point being that they were already very famous (and somewhat 'notorious') before they had even released an of their own material.

The story goes that at some point the Stones manager Andrew Loog-Oldham approached Jagger and Richards and asked them to try writing songs, as he wanted them to try and be more than a cover band. Jones wasn't asked, despite his prodigous talents and having already composed numerous songs of his own.

I find it hard to believe that Jagger and Richards wrote the songs they are alleged to have done to be honest. Jagger who couldn't play a note, and Richards, a mediocre guitarist who himself has admitted that he'd never even considered writing his own music before, suddenly wrote a succesion of brilliant songs that became almost instant classics and have lasted the last 40-50 years as pinaccles of their particular genre. It's a story almost as ludicrous as believing planes were flown into the WTC by arabs on 9/11.

[brianv]

I'm casualy browsing The Stranglers, after listening to "Goodbye Toulouse" from our old favourite "Rattus Norvegicus" album
and wiki throws this at me

"Beginning life as the Guildford Stranglers on 11 September 1974 in Guildford, Surrey,"

...

:typo

[nonhocapito]

Browsing the wicky all strange connections appear. I noticed the other day that, according to it, the double negative song "I can't get no satisfaction" was written at the Fort Harrison hotel in Clearwater, Florida. A town notable for having had Jim Morrison and Lisa Marie Presley among its citizens, and today for being the location of Scientology headquarters...

Maybe all having to do with the fact that "During World War II, Clearwater became a major training base for US troops destined for Europe and the Pacific. Virtually every hotel in the area, including the Belleview Biltmore and the Fort Harrison Hotel, was used as a barracks for new recruits."

[burningame]

[lux]

I find it hard to believe that Jagger and Richards wrote the songs they are alleged to have done to be honest. Jagger who couldn't play a note, and Richards, a mediocre guitarist who himself has admitted that he'd never even considered writing his own music before, suddenly wrote a succesion of brilliant songs that became almost instant classics and have lasted the last 40-50 years as pinaccles of their particular genre. It's a story almost as ludicrous as believing planes were flown into the WTC by arabs on 9/11.

Good points.

David McGowan, in his Laurel Canyon article series, made similar points about Jim Morrison of The Doors as well as other rock stars of the period. Morrison had no training or experience in music, could not play an instrument and never sang before (even in the shower) yet he suddenly appeared with copious amounts of "original" songs and became a rock star nearly overnight.

I wonder: Did any of these "rock legends" really write the music credited to them?