RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : The Orwellian Popular Culture of Modernity

Tuesday
March 9, 2004

The Orwellian Popular Culture of Modernity by G. Stolyarov II

The society of Oceania in Orwell’s 1984 employs entertainment of the utmost vulgarity and a perversity not encountered by a man of proper tastes in order to satisfy the “instinctive urges” of its proletariat. The Oceanians’ music possesses an inhuman crudeness and resembles more the severe thumping of a drum than a me... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (62 messages)

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 6:14pm

Interesting discussion. Just a few point regarding James Bond, given that I am a fan of the character. I don't have the reference to hand but I seem to remember Rand heaping praise on the romantic heroism of Fleming's Bond novels (and *possibly* the early movies).

Regarding Bond's promiscuity - he is certainly nowhere near as promiscuous in the novels. He does have a different woman (or sometimes women) in each book but for the most part they are attractive characters, and I don't personally think that that type of sex life should be a problem for Objectivists. In certain of the movies on the other hand, Bond goes through three or four "easy lays" before getting together with the (usually) heroic "Bond Girl" towards the end, though I do think the more recent movies have improved in this regard.

Finally regarding the song Live And Let Die, I agree that the song is best interpreted as being about Bond's life as a secret agent, and I would point out that he spends most of his life killing the enemies of the free world.

Cheers,
MH

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:09pm

Mr S: “The song, "Back in the USSR," with the line, "You don't know how lucky you are, boys," referring to the Beatles' view of socialism/communism as an evidently more prosperous social system than the wasteful, greedy, materialistic cutthroat competition of the capitalist West.”

Brendan: “Back in the USSR” is a satire on the Cold War. The words and melody are a pastiche of, and tribute to, earlier 1960s songs by the American pop group The Beach Boys. These songs include “Surfing USA”, where young Brian Wilson celebrates the glories of living in the land of the free, and “California Girls”, where he fantasises on the glories of the young American women. Well, he did send a good deal of his early adult life in the bedroom.

Paul McCartney – who probably wrote the song with little input from Lennon and the other Beatles – borrows both lyrically and melodically from these songs and transposes them to another setting, creating something unique and of his own. There’s also a tribute to Elvis there in the phrasing of the voice.

In 1968, when the song was released, we all knew that the Soviet system had a lower standard of living than our own, that it was dull, authoritarian, conformist; above all it didn’t like rock music and used the state apparatus to suppress it. It wasn’t the happening place. That leant the song an extra satirical layer.

The song is clever, if not particularly profound, but like Shrek, it’s got layers. That’s a line that you don’t do well, Mr S. Best not to try.

Brendan

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:38pm

Mr Stolyarov writes:
>1. The song, "Back in the USSR," with the line, "You don't know how lucky you are, boys," referring to the Beatles' view of socialism/communism as an evidently more prosperous social system than the wasteful, greedy, materialistic cutthroat competition of the capitalist West.

This is just too good. Mr Stolyarov, you are so out of your depth it's just not funny. "Back In the USSR" is a droll parody of Chuck Berry ("Back In The USA") and the Beach Boys ("Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out....") The song is actually sending up the Soviets as much as anyone!! Have you never actually heard the songs you're attempting to analyse - like your Bond films? Good lord man, do yourself a favour and give up now!

Mr Stolyarov continues:
>2. Other Beatles expressions of anti-materialism, >including, but not limited to, "Money can't buy me love."

Oh good grief. Newsflash Mr Stolyarov: Ayn Rand didn't think money could buy love either.

- Daniel

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:19pm

Q: "The first track on the LP is 'Back In The USSR.' Could we just talk about this particular track... because it's a wild, rocking thing."

PAUL: "Yeah. Umm, that's a track which... it just sort of came. Chuck Berry once did a song called 'Back In The USA,' which is very American, very Chuck Berry. Very sort of, uhh... you know, you're serving in the army-- And when I get back home I'm gonna kiss the ground-- and you know-- Can't wait to get back to the States. And it's a very American sort of thing, I've always thought. So this one is like about... In my mind it's just about a spy who's been in America a long long time, you know, and he's picked up... And he's very American. But he gets back to the USSR, you know, and he's sort of saying, 'Leave it till tomorrow, honey, to disconnect the phone,' and all that. And 'Come here honey,' but with Russian women. You see, what it is... It concerns the attributes of Russian women."

So, as we can see, Paul was offering us the opposite of Chuck Berry's 'Back in the USA'.

I also think that the particular quote "Money cannot buy me love" has much more meaning than just 'Cash'.

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:58pm

RussK writes>So, as we can see, Paul was offering us the opposite of Chuck Berry's 'Back in the USA'.

Yes. It's a parody. McCartney has balalaikas ring out in place of Chuck Berry's electic guitars, and sticks Brian Wilson's bikini clad babes out in Siberia! It reverses the cliches. So your point is?

RussK>I also think that the particular quote "Money cannot buy me love" has much more meaning than just 'Cash'.

Such as?

- Daniel

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:47am

Have you forgotten that McCartney flew over to New York especially after 911 to perform a song he wrote for the occasion called "Freedom"?

I didn't write this large on purpose, I pasted it here and then could not reduce the size, no matter what I tried. It was unintentional, and I didn't have the time to try and change it - does anyone know how I can reverse that? - the medium or small buttons don't work and I still can't reduce it!

Anyway, although you are right about McCartneys believes in misguided environmentalist nonsense, how does this make him an exponent of the "Live and Let Die" philosophy? I am not sure what his views are explicitly, I can't remember him ever writing a song on the subject.

G> 1. The song, "Back in the USSR," with the line, "You don't know how lucky you are, boys," referring to the Beatles' view of socialism/communism as an evidently more prosperous social system than the wasteful, greedy, materialistic cutthroat competition of the capitalist West.

You are wrong again. This is a "piss take" of the USSR.

"Back in the USSR

You don't know how lucky you are!"

And later in the song

"Honey disconnect the phone"

(This is sung with sarcasm and irony, poking fun at the USSR)

G> 2. Other Beatles expressions of anti-materialism, including, but not limited to, "Money can't buy me love."

Wrong again. This is not anti-materialism. He sings about all the "material things" he has bought his Girlfriend, but that true "love" cannot be bought. Whtether you believe that or not that is a moot point, but it is quite a sad thing if you do.

As for Lennons post Beatle career, I never questioned that.

G> 5. The Beatles' consultation of Indian mystics and their subsequent mass propagations of said mystics' anti-rational ideology.

That's true, but did you also forget that they fell out with the consulted indian mystic guru, when they found out he was not as "holy" as they thought he was, calling him a sharlatan and a fraud. Lennon wrote a song about him called "Sexy Sadie". The unofficial lyrics were much more direct, along the lines of you are a wanker!

The lyrics includes the lines:

Sexy Sadie you broke the rules
Sexy Sadie you'll get yours yet
However big you think you are
We gave her everything we owned just to sit at her table
Sexy Sadie she's the latest and the greatest of them all. She made a fool of everyone

G> I do not grant moral sanction to such perversions of good taste nor to the persons associated with their [the films'] creation (including McCartney).

Your condemnation of Bond Films for their sexual promiscuity is quite funny. Ayn Rand loved the first Bond film "Dr. No" and maybe others too. But "Dr. No" definitely contains the type of promiscuity and perversions of good taste you seem to hate.

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:27am

My fellow Beatles fans:

No lover of liberty can help but smile when he hears "Taxman", "Revolution", or "Back in the U.S.S.R." The Beatles were not without their redeeming qualities. But they stuck it to everybody indiscriminately. They popularized the ironic pose of the beatniks of the prior generation and skewered authority, whatever its source, without much reflection. "I am the Walrus" was not, as some of you have noted, a profound anti-human statement, but Lennon's thumb in the eye of rock critics.

Well, rock critics may need such, but "I am the Walrus" was Lennon's inchoate prologue to "Imagine". "Imagine" is a celebration of relativism and skepticism. It is a denunciation of objective morality and the institutions we need as a society to maintain standards of decent human interaction. At best you can call it an anthem of atomistic individualism. In truth it a Rousseauvian cry, naive or calculated I am not sure, to strip ourselves of what's left of the veneer of civilization we wear and yield to the impulses of our baser selves. So, the ultimate conclusions of "Imagine" are nihilistic.

Mr. Stolyarov's only mistake is to view the work of the Beatles through the prism of what has occurred over the past four decades. Therefore, he may attribute to their lyrics more menace than the Beatles intended at the time. However, an objective observer of the pop scene -- indeed, even a Beatles fan -- can recognize the seeds of nihilism in the later Beatles albums. After all, Lennon's "Imagine" (and the primal scream fest with Yoko and all the trash that followed) did not come from nowhere.

Regards,
Citizen Rat a.k.a. Bill

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:20am

RussK:

You appear to shudder a bit at the prospect of making common cause with the papists, fundies, and who knows what other manner of evil and irrational mystics and whim-worshippers. You posed the following concerns to Stolyarov:

My only problem is what you said to Citzen Rat about how this problem can be solved, by building coalitions with the "Tocquevillean institutions" that he lists. Are you sure that Coalition Building is not becoming a primary and overriding goal in your philosophy?

In your essay you go so far as to state that altruism and other general philosophies are nihilistic and are the source of the problem with todays popular culture. Why then would one interested in a cultural revival, build a coalition with institutions that promote the things (collectivism, statism, altruism, ecoterrorism) that you identify as the problem?

It's a question of what do you value more: [1] A purity of soul that remains uncontaminated by associating with people you disagree with, or [2] cooperating with others regardless of their motives to improve your own surroundings? Maybe another way of looking at it is: How are your principles compromised by working with those who do not share them to achieve a goal you desire? Yes, those with whom you disagree may also achieve goals they desire. It that a reason to sacrifice your objectives to spite theirs?

The reality is that there are very few Objectivists in this world, and, as you are probably aware, they are as fissile a bunch as any group of Troskyites or Protestants. The reality also is that big goals need a lot of cooperation with a lot of people. So how do you as an Objectivist operate in the world as it is, not as you may wish it to be? Unless you choose to be a hermit (which may very well be a fine choice), you cannot avoid collaborating with people you may oppose on other fronts.

The battle against nihilism in our culture strikes me as too important of a fight to get too fussy about allies.

Regards,
Citizen Rat a.k.a. Bill

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:31am

Barnes:

My point was to show that 'Back in the USSR' is presented as an opposite to 'Back in the USA', which I did. What I think as strage is your ability to recognize that Paul is making fun of what he calls "very American", but you continue to defend the song.

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:43am

>Citizen Rat writes:Mr. Stolyarov's only mistake is to view the work of the Beatles through the prism of what has occurred over the past four decades.

If only that was his only mistake! But then I guess it depends on your standards of argument. From his very first examples, "Live and Let Die" and "I Am The Walrus" he shows a breathtaking lack of familiarity with his prime exhibits. In fact, it looks rather like Stolyarov's whole theory about the latter song - that Lennon is equating his own consciousness with an animal's - is based his own blunder over the title ("I am *a* walrus")!!
And so on.

This kind of comedy might just be forgiveable if his central thesis held up: that rock and disco are the natural music of the totalitarian state a la "1984". Yet his case rests on a single, entirely fictional example! All *real* examples of totalitarian states, in fact, show us precisely the opposite!

What can you say, really? Five minutes research into his Exhibits A and B, not to mention into his main theme might have saved Mr Stolyarov the embarrassment of not meeting elementary standards of argument. As it is, all he can do is bluster about "ad hominems" and can't refute a thing.

- Daniel

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:50pm

Daniel:

You've taken Stolyarov to task for some factual errors regarding Beatles lyrics:

What can you say, really? Five minutes research into his Exhibits A and B, not to mention into his main theme might have saved Mr Stolyarov the embarrassment of not meeting elementary standards of argument. As it is, all he can do is bluster about "ad hominems" and can't refute a thing.

What I took from Stolyarov's article is that the past century of pop culture has decayed into nihilism. As indicators of this nihilism he noted some of the similarities between our pop culture and Orwell's descriptions of Big Brother's art and music in "1984". He also noted how the present nihilism in our pop culture is rooted in the 'Sixties, as exemplified by the Beatles.

These things are true, so the particular errors of Stolyarov's analysis of some of the Beatles' lyrics does not defeat the point of his article. The Beatles helped to make irony fashionable to the point that everything became a joke. Thus, irony decayed into cynicism which decayed into nihilism. It is a decadence from Enlightenment standards of excellence that we have a handy term for: Post-modernism, the spirit of an age in which nothing matters.

Do you dispute that we have a vulgar pop culture that appeals more to shock, cheap sentiment, and base urges than to beauty, emotion, and intellect? Unless you care to make a defense of the artistic merits of rap, I'm not sure where you have any genuinely profound disagreement with this.

Regards,
Citizen Rat a.k.a. Bill

P.S. My purpose here is not to co-opt Stolyarov for my agenda as a conservative. He can certainly defend himself on his own terms. However, justice does require pointing out unfair statements.

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:09pm

Greetings.

This discussion has quickly expanded, and I, alas, possess scanter amounts of time to address the various comments than I would have liked. I will try to make further headway into these, though I thank Citizen Rat for presenting many of the replies I would have made to Mr. RussK and Mr. Barnes.

Mr. RussK had stated that he was in essential agreement with me in regard to my thesis and the claims I had presented in the article and discussion, but that he viewed my coalition-building mentality to be a sign of compromise with precisely those ideologies I condemned in the essay. To this I reply that I by no means support coalition with ALL individuals, only those whose basic principles coincide with mine on a given issue.

Let us use the pop-culture issue as an example. Let us envision a likely scenario: several conservative groups and rigidly classical art connoisseurs have established websites and organizations designed to denounce the monstrosity that is rap and present arguments for more rational forms of art. Though many of these persons are religious and formalistic in esthetics, should it be a moral infringement for an Objectivist to post an essay on their website, donate to their organizations, or link to their pages from his own site? I think not.

By "coalition," I do not mean indiscriminate blending of one's initiative with another's, regardless of that other's basic premises. I see scant instances in which I would be willing to cooperate with Jerry Falwell. But, when I encounter conservatives such as Citizen Rat or Steve Martinovich of Enter Stage Right, I see ample productive gains that the filosofy of Objectivism and I as an individual can obtain from interacing with these persons.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:37pm

Mr. Barnes' other contention not based on personal attacks is that I cannot provide real-world examples of mass popular culture being a weapons of totalitarian (or at least statist) orders. Here is a list of examples that I can furnish just from common knowledge.

1. The "Big Brother" Saddam worshipping Iraqi paradigm under the Baath Party, when Saddam's picture was prominently featured on every street, and films were produced which portrayed either Saddam's "heroic" rise to power, or Saddam, bare to the waist, cruising on his boat, as a "sex symbol" for the Iraqi people. The Iraqi State attempted to package Hussein as a mixture of "tough guy" and "pretty guy," precisely the sort of imagery expected of male pop idols today.

2. The drug haven of The Netherlands where drugs are officially distributed by the government to addicts, using taxpayer funds. Though I oppose drug prohibition, I see this policy as a cultural entrenchment of drug usage, and a demonstration that statism and such decadent habits (endorsed by modern pop-culture) go hand in hand.

3. (This is not a state, but a man's vision of how to get a hold of a state, and a highly developed one, too). Socialist (all but in name) Howard Dean chanting and cursing and engaging in crowd-rousing demagoguery that, in style, greatly resembles that of the rappers.

4. The decadent culture of statist Weimar Germany, which was in many ways the prelude to the desecration that occurred during the 1960s. (Read Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for a more than comprehensive description).

5. The ultimate example: Adolf Hitler, as aptly described by psychologist and anti-pornografy activist, Dr. Judith Reisman:

http://www.judithreisman.org/toxic.doc

"How then did Hitler create the Nazi youth? As you read Adolph’s method for building heartless killers, ponder today’s toxic images. He said:

Propaganda must be addressed to the emotions and not to the intelligence and it must concentrate on a few simple themes.... with lurid photographs of the.... sexual and physical.[i]

The “lurid photographs of the.... sexual and physical” dominating our entertainment landscape certainly fit Hitler’s requirements. But there is a more intimate similarity between the new killers and Hitler’s youth. German “sexologist,” Wilheim Reich reported how those “lurid pictures” were used: “Nazi youth.... practice self-excitement by means of pornographic pictures at fourteen years of age; perform coitus under archways, in cellars or alleys”.[i]"

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:34pm

Barnes,

Shame on you, boy. You call Mr Ed a comedy. Don’t you remember that Ayn Rand taught us never to snigger at the Sacred? There’s nothing funny about Mr Ed. Nor is he a farce, a joke, or a piece of slapstick. He’s certainly no wit. And as for clowning or jesting…please.

No, Mr Ed is no comedy. He’s a tragedy, goddammit! So wipe that smirk off your face and get to the back of the class. I’ll deal with you later.

Mr B (thwack!)

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:35pm

Citizen Rat says>You've taken Stolyarov to task for some factual errors regarding Beatles lyrics

Look, that's just not the point. The point is: does Stolyarov know what he's talking about? All the indicators are clearly NO!

In fact, the indicators suggest that his essay is a bunch of lazy assumptions that he hasn't spent 5 minutes actually investigating. His bumbling analysis of his own prime examples merely *highlight* this!

We must then ask: does this laziness extend to his major theme which - to the extent that it can be determined - is that pop music is the tool of Orwellian totalitarian regimes, to divert humanity away from recognising their individual rights? One can only answer yes - as he has nothing but a fictional example to illustrate his case, with all *real* examples showing the exact opposite!

You will note from my first post that I think that the problem of nihilism in popular culture is a real one! Just don't expect to learn much from Mr Stolyarov's windy and inept 'filosofising'.

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:49pm

As for Mr. Barnes' dwelling on the article, his comparison of "I Am a Walrus" to "A Fountainhead" is entirely out of context, as some articles are of far greater importance in conveying meaning than other. "The Fountainhead" implies that the ego is the sole fundamental source of creative accomplishment, whereas, whatever article one uses in front of "Walrus," the song remains ridiculous and frightening.

I could argue, using my interpretation of the song's meaning, that "the" in "the Walrus" merely refers to the walrus species. (As environmentalists frequently refer to "the endangered spotted slug" or "the endangered polka-dot dung beetle" [humor intended]). This would render the article issue moot, as both articles are still able to carry across precisely the same meaning. But Mr. Barnes' quote from the Beatles will still suffice to portray their nihilism, cynicism, and lack of standards, which insight was the essence of my claims about the group.

And if the song was just deliberate nonsense in an attempt to confuse the critics, as Mr. Barnes contends, then why make such an explosive issue out of a nonsensical article in a nonsensical title? I suspect this is because Mr. Barnes has scant other legitimate arguments to make that would justify his spiteful and arbitrary attacks, and therefore must harp on minutiae.

I have, in fact, refuted the substance of his claims. Of course, in his next post, he will, in some manner or another, once again contend that I am an ignorant nitwit.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

(Edited by G. Stolyarov II on 3/11, 2:50pm)

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:07pm

Mr S,

Once again, you have it all wrong. Mr Barnes did not call you a nitwit. He called you a comedy. And not just any old comedy, but a comedy of errors.

Of course the Walrus is nonsense, but at least the purveyors of English nonsense know they are talking nonsense.

Je suis,

Mr B

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:19pm

Stolyarov:
Please back up your claims with actual documentation from historical records. 1984, while a powerful novel, is fiction, and not objective fact. As it stands, contemporary totalitarian regimes seem to stand against your case, as such typically reject avant-garde art and demand a return to historically esteemed classics. We will, for example, note Hitler's denunciations of Jazz as "degenerate music". One imagines he would say much the same thing about Rock or Rap or Techno. he also railed against DaDa, demanding a return to a type of romanticized classicism. Where is this correlation between 20th century mainstream artistic genres and totalitarian politics?

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:43pm

G. Stolyarov: I was taking into question coalition with the
institutions Citizen Rat mentioned: Churches, Public Schools,
etc... I see nothing wrong with an art coalition as you
present for your example. I do see something wrong in a
coalition with Churches, bulwarks of altruism (a product of
nihilism that you identify as a cause to the problems with
pop-culture).

Friday, March 12, 2004 - 5:16am

Mr. Stolyarov:

You wrote:

I will try to make further headway into these, though I thank Citizen Rat for presenting many of the replies I would have made to Mr. RussK and Mr. Barnes.

You're welcome. Although I would not presume to speak for you (or anyone else on this board), I am glad to be of assistance in an argument that should concern all serious-minded people.

Regards,
Citizen Rat a.k.a. Bill