TZUTC: -0800   
   MSGID: 1898.fido-memories@1:153/757.2 26127b6e   
   REPLY: 25319.memoryln@1:2320/105 26102b01   
   PID: Synchronet 3.19a-Linux master/717592bc9 Dec  1 2021 GCC 11.2.0   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Linux master/717592bc9 Dec  1 2021 GCC 11.2.0   
   BBSID: TRMB   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
    > >  > No.  In this day and age, what the Beatles did back then seems so very   
    > >  > tame   
    > >  > in comparison.  :)   
      
    > > I meant where were ou as in when in the era & where in the attutudes. . .   
      
    > I was not around yet.  :)   
      
   But how do you feel about the parental hysteria overt groups like the Beatles   
   (new, innovative, different, challenging)   
      
    > > I considered the music mellow, mainstream, & as inoffensive as you get,   
    > > but I guess just one or two trilling riffs is all it took to get certain   
    > > parents all   
    > > afluster!   
      
    > Maybe they didn't like the later, psychedelic stuff the Beatles did but my   
    > understanding is that they were up in arms about them long before then.   
      
   Pretty much from day one, mostly because they all had long hair (Elvis, their   
   hero, always had short/nbet hair, & no facial hair, so what was with the got   
   tam Beatles?  These people still say the Beatles began the erosion of American   
   moral values upon arrival in 1964.   
      
   I say their OTT response is what started the 'erosion' if anything.   
      
   One older Catholic friend pointed out how if you look in TV Guide, at movie   
   ratings, for movies made pre-1964,  most are 3-5, but post-1064, they're 1-3.   
      
   I have spot-checked thatr on occasion, & it seems to hold up, but I don't feel   
   this single datum is enough to state a position regarding causation.   
      
   Gotta have all pertinent facts, like how at5 one time they said that the birth   
   control pill caused skin cancer because the majority of women taking the BCP   
   develped skin cancer at a notably higher rate of incidence than the non-BCP   
   using public.   
      
   Turned out that correlation does not equal causation; after a proper   
   scientific(following the proper rules for such) study, it was determined that   
   the type of woman who used the BCP were also the same type to sunbathe in   
   bikinis more than the general, perhaps more priggish, population.   
      
   Now, I love exposed female skin muchly,but I don't love women geting cancer for   
   the sake of my visual pleasure.   
      
   I'm likewise careful regarding who I potentially get pregnant (limited to only   
   my wife now, but even in my oat-sowing years, I wasn't out relying on BCP   
   takers to take care of matters)   
      
    > > Likely there was parental banning of innovations in classical, too, back   
    > > then when it was new & current. . .   
      
    > I cannot remember his name now, but there was a very controversial   
    > violinist back in the day.  I forget the story now, but he supposedly had   
    > women fainting in the aisles.  This would have been sometime before 1900   
    > (maybe before 1800!).   
      
   I think I've read something on that, too, but likewise don't recall. . .   
      
   So I checked with my buddy Gopgle & found this:   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_concerts_with_an_unruly_a   
   udience_response   
      
   I'm not able to find the one you mentioned; nothing imvolving fainting in that   
   list.   
      
   Try again. . .   
      
   A comment from a senior member on talkclassical.com said:   
      
   "Almost everything he did was unexpected -- and still is on first listen if   
   you're deeply immersed in it. It's those passages where he leads you along and   
   you think he's going to resolve a phrase on the tonic or root chord as most   
   others composers of the time did, but then goes off on a completely surprising   
   tangent. Combine that with the headbanging thrust, Thrust, THRUST of his   
   sforzando passages and he must have had people fainting in the aisles."   
      
   I can see that -- any kind of jumngle beat got the hoity toity types upset, as   
   it put them in mind of Negroes from the African jungles, & HORRORS, they're   
   WILD, don't you know, & their tall, strong, muscular bodies lead previously   
   perfectly holy women to have sexual feelings & thoughts, so obviously they have   
   the Devil in them! /sarcasm   
      
    > > I'm fine with lookikng out for what young people are exposed to, as it can   
    > > lea   
    > > to them losing their cuildhood/youth too early. . .   
      
    > A lot of it can.  I feel like today, most parents do little to keep them   
    > from being exposed.   
      
   You know it! It was prertyu basic when I grew up in the '70s -- in my home, we   
   knew what was good & what wasn't & watched/read/listened to the latter at our   
   own risk of parental disciplinary peril.   
      
   As an adult, out of the house (I left home at 12, to begin my independence), I   
   watched/reasd whatever I lked, but I was aware of the content & how it might   
   affect me &/or others, so you'd never have seen me cranking up 2 Live Crew   
   lyrics loud enough for a block of social housing with every house having a   
   minimium of 2 children., as one teen girl resident did (the most vulgar lyrics:   
   involving rape & physical abuse of women. She seemed to have no clue they were   
   speaking of beating & raping HER. Or maybe that was the pleasure for her?)   
      
   I was into music most adults hated (speed metal), but you never heard such   
   vulgarity in the lyrics or interviews! Yes the beat was very definitely sexual,   
   but so what? One always has a choice whether to give in to thoughts &   
   inclinations, whether music inducxed or not.   
      
    > > My theory is the industries (film & music) wanted those ratings in lace,   
    > > but were happy to make it seem as if the censors did it!   
      
    > Yes, the explicit lyrics labels.  I am certain they sold a few records.   
      
   & to the ones least able to handle them responsibly, usually ("ooo-wee, this   
   one says **** & *****; I love it!")   
      
   I've had explicit comedy records & videos, but I'm above the visceral aspects.   
   It's more "so what? they just used a different word choice than others."   
      
   I can translate any joke into a clean POR a filthy version quite easily, on the   
   fly. . . :)  & neither version is a different joke -- the humour, to me, is   
   based on the setup & twist, not in the wording used; usually.  A couple do rely   
   on the sweet build up & the BA-BAM of a three year old blonde girl using the F-   
   word inappropriately!  But they could be dited to a lowe level (from PG-17 to   
   PG-13 by anyone with a decent command of the English language); it all depends   
   on your target audience, & your overall goals.   
      
   e.g. I love George Carlin, & I knowe he's rejected by many because he swears   
   so9 much (look up "7 words you can't say on television" for the definitive   
   example); I understand, now, that he WANTS thos types to avoid his   
   performances.  He's up there revealing truths to the hardworking downtrodden in   
   a language most recognize & use daily, & he's trying to reserve any special   
   insights to them only, not to the, largely rich old white, establishment whom   
   he rejects, for the most part.   
      
   He plants parody ideas in opeople's gheads, like the one of the fat rich golfer   
   on his private club's golf course, smoking a cuban cigar(banned to everyone   
   else) as "fat white businessman sucking on a big brown d***")   
      
   That's an image that stays with you -- definitely part of his intent.   
      
   If the fat whte buysi9nessman cares about the label/imagery people have of him,   
   he can change it; maybe sell off that gaudy expanse of mostly unused land, to   
   build housing for those who need mnore affordable & available housing,   
   espexcially the homeless, & maybe observe the same [former] Cuban embargo   
   everyone else must, & chew cheap gum instead of sucking on a big brown phallic   
   shaped item, causing air pollution for all to 'enjoy'. . .   
      
   Works for me, but I guess I'm a bit of a rebel, too, just not as funny,   
   gfanous, or successful as the late George Carlins, whom I nominated for a   
   posthumous Nobel Peace Prize, not realizug they don't do those.   
      
   Your friend,   
      
   <+]:{)}   
   Cyberpope, Bishop of ROM   
   --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux   
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 14/0 30/0 80/1 90/1 103/705 105/81 120/340 123/131   
   SEEN-BY: 129/305 134/100 153/0 105 135 757 7715 154/10 218/700 840   
   SEEN-BY: 221/1 6 226/30 227/114 229/424 426 428 452 664 700 240/1120   
   SEEN-BY: 240/5832 249/206 307 317 400 261/38 267/67 280/464 282/464   
   SEEN-BY: 282/1038 292/854 301/0 1 101 113 123 317/3 322/757 335/364   
   SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 633/280 712/848 920/1 4500/1 5020/1042 5058/104   
   PATH: 153/757 221/6 301/1 229/426