Monday, 31 October 2016

The Sixties, Popular Music, Protest and Confused Messages: Black Sabbath.


This second blog entry examines the music of Black Sabbath. How its bleakness might be a symptom of dissatisfaction with socio-economic changes locally and with injustices being protested in the wider world. Alternatively their music could be another, heavier, more extreme manifestation of sex, drugs and rock and roll. The latter possibly providing reasons why protest movements failed to gather wider support from potential young activists.

 The chilling opening to ‘Black Sabbath’ is created by three notes consisting of an octave leap that drops down an augmented fourth, a tritone: Diabolus in Musica (Devil music). Since medieval times this musical interval has often been maligned and avoided. The title track was supposedly inspired by a 'vision' of a satanic figure seen by 'Geezer' Butler. Being aspiring musicians, the band wanted to sound heavier than their contemporaries, Jimi Hendrix and Cream. A long queue outside a cinema, waiting to watch a horror film called Black Sabbath, inspired the band name and gave them an idea of how to make money.[1] So they embraced the idea of playing dark, heavy music, while hopefully cashing in on audiences eager to pay for the excitement of being scared.

 Black Sabbath's official website says they were 'a product of the late sixties', when new hopeful visions became affected by the grimmer realities of world politics, war, poverty and drugs.[2] Locally, the landscape of Birmingham was changing with the continuing appearance of tower blocks and the construction of the Gravelly Hill Interchange (Spaghetti Junction). Like some other young people opposed to ‘the system', they may have been looking for alternative ways to rebel. Perhaps the dark menace of the music was part of a subversive counter-culture.  Some hippies found themselves looking for higher meanings, in mysticism and cosmic consciousness. The 'problem', as Camille Paglia puts it, was that 'the more the mind was opened to..."cosmic consciousness", the less meaningful politics or social structure became, melting into the void.'[3]

 A part of escaping the mundanity of urban life for Black Sabbath was pursuing the rewards of fame; that the bands they admired enjoyed. After two years of success, the excess of sex and drugs reached extreme levels of 'degenerate behaviour', described as 'worthy of Caligula.'[4] Some fans wanted to emulate their rock idols and some liked the music because it attended a lifestyle choice. They may have also felt equally negative about the world around them.

 Political activism and protest was certainly part of sixties youth culture. Music with its ability to release youthful frustration and angst may have also played its part. If protest seemed in decline, and dark music represented a form of subversion, it is easy to see how that would have had an effect. Black Sabbath fans, however, might not share this opinion. It might just be that heavy music is exciting and fun, and this was a more general reason why young people did not always engage with politics and protest, and why Black Sabbath continued to make money from ‘Devil Music’.

By Paul Wilson.



[1] Neil Curry, ‘Godfathers of Metal Black Sabbath return to roots’, CNN, cnn.com (10:56 GMT, 22 June, 2013) http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/22/showbiz/black-sabbath/ (accessed 21/10/2016).
[2] Black Sabbath, Band, History http://www.blacksabbath.com/history.html (accessed 21/10/2016).
[3] Camille Paglia, ‘Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s’, Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, Third Series, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter, 2003), pp. 57-111 (p. 58). Jstor.org http://www.jstor.org/stable/20163901?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents (accessed 21/10/2016).
[4] Paul Lester, ‘Black Sabbath: We used to have cocaine flown in by private plane’, theguardian.com (17:35 BST, 6 June  2013) https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jun/06/black-sabbath-cocaine-private-plane  (accessed 22/10/2016).

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?




Dallas Texas, November 22nd 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald takes aim and fires on the then president John F Kennedy, these shots would echo through the pages of history and conspiracy for decades to come. The Assassination of JFK is still widely debated, as many contemporary Americans refuse to believe the official story and instead choose to explore the alternate world of conspiracy theories. This blog aims to gain a greater understanding of the reasoning behind those suspicious minded individuals who devote themselves to conspiracy theories. I will be exploring three aspects of how someone may believe in a conspiracy: by connecting the dots, a willingness to believe and the big history.  

Connecting the dots:  Much of the evidence for conspiracy theories are built on small inconsistences and gaps in the main stream story, this coupled with the human mind’s incredible ability to discover and decipher complex patterns, leads us to the dot connecting theory for conspiracy theories.  The assassination of JFK is riddled with coincidences and inconsistences, which make it ripe for theorists. By creating an elaborate story founded on inconsistences, this does make conspiracy theories hard to disprove. In fact, by their very nature conspiracy theories are almost impossible to prove or disprove, as they are constructed using coincidences and inconsistences.

Willingness to believe: This camp falls into two; as there are those who find the official story boring and find it fun to speculate in conspiracy. The other camp are those theorists who believe any story apart from the official, even if these stories contradict each other. An example of this would be someone who believes that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in the assassination of JFK but this person also believes that JFK was not assassinated. These oxymoronic theories take the willingness to believe to a brand new level, and this level of conspiracy can be dangerous. Rob Brotherton in his book Suspicious minds posits the idea that the reason people chose to reject the official story is because they feel threatened by forces out of their control. Brotherton added that in the context of the JFK conspiracy, people who believed tended to feel more threatened by their own government.  

Big history: Proportionality bias is the theory that we believe a cause is greater or equal to the consequence.  For example, the death of a president must have a big cause. It is perfectly natural for humans to think this way; therefore, I would like to pose a thought experiment, as we compare the assassination of JFK with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Of these two assassination attempts, one was successful and steeped in conspiracy, whereas the other was not and has very little to no conspiracy adjoined to it. What if it had been the other way around? What if Kennedy had lived and Reagan died? Would there be a grand conspiracy surrounding the Reagan assassination? Questions like these help us to think more deeply about why we believe the things that we do and why people might believe in a conspiracy theory.

To summarise, there are many reasons as to why a person might choose to believe in a conspiracy theory, as these theorise ultimately play into our natural ability of pattern finding. Moreover, as conspiracy theories are difficult to disprove they can attract those suspicious minded individuals who remain sceptical.

Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section below.   

 - Jack Cerullo :)

 

 


Tuesday, 18 October 2016

The Sixties, Popular Music, Protest and Confused Messages

The Beatles, Rolling Stones and The Who continue to gather fans fifty years after they formed. Music is a major part of sixties nostalgia but protest movements were also in full swing, and over contentious issues still reverberating today. This series of blogs looks at how sixties popular music provided another voice to protest groups but also how just music style possibly mirrored disparities more widely found within the internal politics of protest. Besides the bands and music more readily associated with the decade, jazz was highly popular.

Not many people have heard of The Real Ambassadors, an album telling the story of the US State Department funded cultural exchange tours of the late fifties and early sixties, using high profile jazz performers.[1] By choosing a ‘home-grown’ popular music culture the US sought to promote itself to the world as a liberal and ‘cool’ alternative to totalitarian communism. Performers like Louis Armstrong and John Birks “Dizzy” Gillespie found themselves wrestling with being representatives of freedom, while at home African Americans suffered racial segregation.

Armstrong, nicknamed Satchmo, was loved by many for his music and his gentle, happy persona. In 1957, during the Little Rock Crisis, he angrily told a reporter, much to the surprise of friends and fans, Eisenhower was “two faced” and Faubus, the Arkansas Governor, was an “uneducated plow boy.”[2] Upcoming cultural exchange tours were cancelled Shortly afterwards Eisenhower used troops to force integration, a move rewarded with gratitude in a telegram from Satchmo. Reading Satchmo Blows Up the World, you could become convinced that the actions of a jazz ambassador proved pivotal in the President’s intervention; that might be stretching a point.

In 1964, the political strength of jazz was tested again. Dizzy declared he was to stand for President. Badges advertising “Dizzy for President” were originally sold to raise funds towards civil rights campaigns but this evolved into a ‘light hearted’ election bid to put jazz men in the White House. Miles Davis would have become Minister of the Treasury. Policies included one rule saying, ‘people applying for jobs have to wear sheets over their heads so bosses won’t know what they are until after they’ve been hired.’[3] So, both Satchmo and Dizzy supported a principle but, perhaps, similar to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, they found delivering a completely unified approach sometimes more difficult to sustain.

Musical style exposed differences between the two jazz stars. It went beyond their interpretations of how jazz should sound. Dizzy was instrumental in the creation of Bebop style, a modern, more chaotic form of jazz; Satchmo, who started playing before Dizzy was born, played the traditional stuff. Armstrong’s grinning, humble appearances and songs like ‘When It’s Sleepy Time Down South’ created resentment in Dizzy, who often went along with views that Satchmo appeared to be an ‘Uncle Tom.’ This negative racial stereotype conformed to ideas held by pro-segregationists and was thought to be counter-productive to the civil rights cause.
                                 
In the title track, the ‘The Real Ambassadors’, Satchmo sings, with his unique and soulful voice, about the ‘illegality’ of racial segregation. One hopeful lyric predicts a day when the only difference between people ‘will be in personality.’[4] What a shame that Louis’ personality and style created what seems like unnecessary ill feeling.

Paul Wilson.





[1] Brubeck, Dave and Iola, The Real Ambassadors. Louis Armstrong and His Band, Dave Brubeck and others. Columbia COL 476897 2, 1962. CD.

[2] Laurence Bergreen, Louis Armstrong an Extravagant Life (London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1998), p. 471.

[3] Dizzy Gillespie, with Al Fraser, To Be or Not to Bop, First University of Minnesota Press Edition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), p. 457.

[4] Brubeck, The Real Ambassadors.