Television's Sci-Fi Conspiracy That Never Was

Watching Fox's new Sci-Fi series, "Fringe," by Writer/Producer JJ Abrams, I was struck by the "Conspiracy That Never Was," and the total inability of current TV, as well as Comic Book writers and producers, to make decent Science Fiction. Science Fiction that addresses the central facts of our time. It's as if certain things never existed, at all. Almost every comic book, science fiction television program, and science fiction movies have the same problem. Pushing ideas that are not true, villains and heroes that have no basis in reality, and ignoring very real trends that threaten the West.

The dominant facts of our Post Cold-War era are decentralization, globalization, and the ability of even poor nations, even loosely organized groups, to kill masses of wealthy Westerners in their own countries through the spread of technology. Assault rifles such as the AK-47 are widely manufactured, in some places in Africa they can be purchased for around $100. Nuclear weapons are not (yet) such a commodity, but failed nations like North Korea, where citizens often starve and eat grass, have produced their own. Along with ICBMs capable of reaching Alaska and Hawaii. Neither the nukes nor the ICBMs may be of good quality, but even a badly made spear can kill. Even more troubling, the squabbling tribes with a flag known as Pakistan have more than 100 nuclear weapons, under questionable control and security.

Yet science fiction television show after show, comic book after comic book, presents the same tired old themes that have no resemblance to actual reality: massive, super-organized American government conspiracies, evil plots by gigantic American corporations, massive and secret scientific efforts, often for bad ends, by centralized powers (either the US government or Corporations or both). With brave, "rebel" type misfits who seek to expose the "lies" and so bring about a new order of truth and justice. In other words, recycled Watergate plots mixed with X-Files conspiracy mongering. Missing: any mention of the words "Islam," "Jihad," or "Muslims." It's always evil White men (and sometimes women) behind the plot, and the corporate evil-doers are always American, never say, Chinese or Russian or Middle Eastern corporations. It's as if Chinese companies never sold poisoned baby food or pet food. As if Russia were not the major arms supplier to dangerous rogue regimes. As if oil-fueled Princes and Sultans, often dissolute, Jihadist, and polygamous tyrants, were not buying up many US firms and properties, including say, the media.

As Comic book writer Frank Miller says, characters like Superman and Batman are supposed to be used to punch out men like Osama bin Laden, but even Miller, with the success of "300" and "Sin City," cannot get his Batman vs. Osama comic book published. Partly out of fear, of Muslims killing writers, artists, publishers, and anyone else associated with the project (as happened with Salman Rushdie's Italian translator and publisher, and Dutch Film Maker Theo Van Gogh, descendant of Vincent Van Gogh). But mostly out of Political Correctness.

Orwell was mostly right, in his novel "1984." The only thing he got wrong, was that the Ministry of Truth was not a centralized, Stalinist organization, but rather the noxious, decentralized thought control of the wealthy Baby Boomers who took over America's cultural institutions in the late 1980's. This is why current comic books, television, and movies are so bad with respect to Science Fiction. Political Correctness (and Multiculturalism and "Diversity") require writers to ignore what they see with their own eyes and toe the party line. Or face career ruin.

"Fringe," the new Science Fiction series from "Lost," creator JJ Abrams, is a good example of this requirement to deny the obvious. Just as the Roman Catholic Church required Galileo to deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun (instead of the other way around), so too does Political Correctness require Abrams to deny the obvious. Deny that governments and corporations, are filled with careerist, take-no-risks bureaucrats, who fear PC-driven lawsuits more than say, a terrorist attack. After all, no one lost their job or had their career impacted by doing nothing to prevent 9/11. Deny that science and technology advances contribute to decentralized threats, instead of massive conspiracies by governments and corporations. Deny that cheap encryption, public data networks, globalization, and the large scale movements of people and goods provides even loosely organized and poorly funded organizations such as Al Qaeda the proven ability to kill mass numbers of Americans and Westerners in their own countries. Deny that Islam, Jihad, and Muslims are at the heart of the real, decentralized, and ongoing threats to Americans.

Just as in the "X-Files," or "Lost," or "Serenity," or "Nowhere Man," or "Battlestar Galactica," or nearly any Science Fiction television show of note, "Fringe" posits all the threats emanating from the "evil" US Government and corporate nexus. In the most recent episode, research by the evil US Government during the Vietnam War to create a group of "supersoldiers" in just a few weeks, through accelerated growth and aging created a ruthless serial killer. Along with that theme (science is inherently evil, and controlled by "big" organizations, namely the US government and Corporations), was the fascinating sub-theme of pregnancy being a lethal threat to attractive women (that literally kills them). A more telling window, into the consumerist consumption of sex, and anti-natalism, could not be imagined. That science and technology is presented as "creepy" and threatening, ultimately evil, is also quite illustrative. Themes that the "X-Files," presented constantly, but also present in "Lost," and "Nowhere Man," and "Serenity," and Battlestar Galactica," the remake (by Ron Moore).

The world view of course is that women should remain single, attractive, and never "ruin" themselves with pregnancy. That science and technology is "evil" because it furthers centralized control of the massive Government-Corporate conspiracies, and that Western society's greatest threat comes from the evil insiders (White males and females). "Fringe," tellingly, has the noble US Government head played by ... a Black man. So that everyone knows he is the good guy, and the Hillary Clinton resembling older White female Corporate head, the obvious villain. All kin to the central Corporate conspiracy of "Lost," or the Government conspiracy of "Serenity" (the "terrorist" Reavers are "created" by the Government's thought control "signals" of peace and cooperation). Even the remake of "Battlestar Galactica," has the Cylons as being "created" by humans as slaves, and suggests that humanity has it coming to be wiped out by "better," and more perfect creations. That are immortal, never age, and don't get pregnant, much less form families.

How did America's creative community get to such a state? What are the reasons for this iron-clad PC inquisition, that prevents writers from writing about what they see before their eyes and reciting the dull, aging dogma of 1968? Why must they deny that it moves?

It is important, to look back, and see what came before. Before "the X Files," or "La Femme Nikita" (the Canadian co-production starring Peta Wilson), before "Serenity," the remake of "Battlestar Galactica," or "Lost," or "Cloverfield," or any of those types of PC-bound shadows of Science Fiction. Back to the 1970's, and 1980's.

Back when shows like "Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century," or "Six Million Dollar Man," or "Greatest American Hero," or even "the Flash," defined Science Fiction on American Television.

What these shows had in common were: humor, a sense of people working together, not to uncover massive and all-consuming Government/Corporate conspiracies, but to achieve worthwhile goals, a sense that society could be saved from threats, big or small, and optimism about the future. A future broadly defined as well, "American," in the classic sense. Science and technology were not "evil" and threatening to the status quo, but a critical tool that enabled the good guys to beat the bad guys. Even in such films as 1991's "the Rocketeer," (written by Danny Bilson), which came relatively late in the 1980's cycle, a more optimistic view of America, government, patriotism, corporations, technology, and who and what the villains were contrasts starkly with "the X Files" which came only two years later, in 1993.

The table below shows what huge changes took place, demographically. The old guard, who came of age no later than the early 1970's, and mostly in the late 1950's, still believed in the promise of America, and the American Dream. Their version of Science Fiction had their friends, neighbors, and people they knew as heroes enabled by technology — and cooperation among themselves, though with often humorous bickering that merely served to emphasize how different people could come together to save the day, as long as they shared the same fundamental values.

By contrast, the later generation came of age in ground zero of Political Correctness, in the 1980's. The 1980's were the era when the wealthy, connected cohort who had been immersed in the 1960's protest culture came to power. Naturally, the tools they used for power were quite different from the older cohort they displaced. Instead of cooperation, seeking "deviancy" from the accepted dogma of Political Correctness was the tool for advancement. A way to use an updated version of the Inquisition to inquire after thought crime, and remove rivals who might pose threats to one's career, or those who one could replace or supplant.

1990's to 2000's Writer/Producers
Person	Age	Year at Age 20
JJ Abrams	42	1986
Joss Whedon	44	1984
Josh Scwartz	32	1996
Ron Moore	44	1984
Chris Carter*	41	1976
Joel Surnow*	41	1976
1970's to 1980's Writer/Producers
Person	Age	Year at Age 20
Stephen J. Cannell	40	1961
Harve Bennett	47	1950
Glen A Larson	44	1957
Danny Bilson	37	1976

Thus the conspiracy themes of evil US Government and Corporate powers, merely echoes the only PC-laden denunciations of those insufficiently enlightened. As does the theme of "exposure," where writers and producers "expose" their peers who not Politically Correct enough, and so "destroy" anyone who might offer a "threat" to return to the old certainties of cooperation, optimism, and the American Dream (laced with can-do technology).

Note that in the case of Chris Carter and Joel Surnow, I used the year their signature series debuted, and then added three more years to make them an influential producer rather than merely a first year success. So for Carter, I used his age at 1993 plus three years, or 1996. For Surnow, it was 1997 (La Femme Nikita, not 24's debut) and then added three years to get his age at 2000. For the older producers from the 1970's and 1980's, I used the same methodology. One might quibble with one or two producers and the year selected, but the overall result I think is sound. Looking at producers who make well known or influential Science Fiction television series, at the three year mark. [All data taken from IMDB.com.] It's men in their thirties and forties who write and produce most of the influential Science Fiction television. Men with enough youth to work the punishing hours, and still maintain creative control or influence, and enough maturity to avoid pitfalls in production, writing, staffing, and creative directions. Yes, it is a very male field. Women, for what ever reason, do not seem attracted to writing and producing Science Fiction.

Regardless, if you compare the attitudes towards technology, cooperation, patriotism, America, and the threats, from a show like "Greatest American Hero" versus, say, "Fringe," the change is striking. What stands out is faith and fear. The older generation had faith in the essential goodness of the American Hero, enabled by technology. Ralph Hinckley is a High School teacher, who is presented as much of a hero for believing he can make a difference in the lives of his at-risk students as he is with the super-suit given to him by Aliens. His comic foil and partner, Bill Maxwell, might be the comic relief as the Reagan-loving FBI agent, but his beliefs are often proved correct and his toughness and patriotism are celebrated. This is largely because the man who wrote their lines, Stephen J. Cannell, came of age when people still believed those things. Whereas JJ Abrams, writer of "Lost," came of age in 1986, when PC started to assert it's iron rule upon our culture.

The other thing notable from it's complete absence on screen, is of course Jihad. By the late 1970's, Islamic Terrorism was inescapable. Our diplomats and Embassy personnel had been held hostage and tortured for more than a year in Tehran, by the Ayatollah. Throughout the 1980's, Islamic Terrorism grew, with airliners bombed out of the sky (Lockerbie/Pan Am 103) or the Marine Barracks in Beirut and our embassy there, or hostage taking, too numerous to recount. The 1990's were even worse, with terrorist attacks on our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing hundreds, the first World Trade Center plot that killed six and hoped to kill 50,000 (by toppling one tower onto another). And yet, there was nothing resembling Jihad ever depicted on "La Femme Nikita" (where the terrorists were all ex-Marxist Europeans or Serbians) or "the X Files," or "Nowhere Man," or "Lost," or even "Battlestar Galactica," where the "terrorists" were all played by sexy, lithe starlets who bore no resemblance, physically, emotionally, or culturally to Mohamed Atta or Osama bin Laden.

As "Wretchard" of the Belmont Club points out, the main issue is fear that PC is breaking down along with Multiculturalism and Diversity, as a means for social control and advancement, with the threat of terrorism, abetted by nuclear proliferation, global trade and the movement of people, and the equal distribution of technology. Even Al Qaeda has websites:


In the years leading up to the Civil War there was the theory among those who advocated compromise that slavery would gradually fade away and that a direct confrontation was ultimately unnecessary. In a kind of inversion the Left has probably hoped since the 1960s that people would be ‘enlightened’ into voluntarily accepting their intellectual chains.

But the Culture Wars and especially the Rise of Islam have shaken that belief to the core. The Culture Wars meant the program wasn’t working. People were pushing back. And with the decline of the MSM and the growing obsolescence of the traditional university it became less obvious that a certain world view could ‘inevitably’ be imposed by cultural indoctrination alone. But I think the advent of radical Islam really told them the clock ticking. If they couldn’t make their vision happen soon, it wouldn’t happen at all. September 11 had the effect of energizing conservatism and usurping the Left self-appointed revolutionary role. The Left was caught between two fires: the conservative hold-outs and the more militant Muslims. But there was a third, largely unrecognized factor which weakened the Left. Globalization. Globalization has made not just Islam but a whole host of non-Marxist authoritarianisms competitive with their monopoly. The Confucian Chinese and the Russian crime-syndicate types of authoritarianism mean their dream of a multilateral EU-style world is far from inevitable. In fact, it means their politically correct world is unlikely to survive in the fact of such brutal competitors. Not only are the demographics and trends are against them, their silly little Fabianism simply won’t work against thugs. You can’t argue “reproductive rights” with radical Islam who will simply decapitate the staff of their abortion clinics. Nor can you blater on about human rights in Moscow, where a bullet in the head answers all arguments. About the only thing the Left is confident of beating is the relatively civilized, Bible-clinging, law-abiding soccer mom. So that’s who they’re going to beat up on. Not any Shi’ite militias or Janjaweeds. None of those. What they’ll take on is Sarah Palin or an old geezer who can’t comb his hair.

Our culture has been stuck in 1968 for a long time. Key creative people, in Television, in Movies, in Publishing, even in Comic Books have accepted Political Correctness, as the sort of Inquisition, because it worked. Wretchard is correct, already the ability of the Inquisition to ruin careers and end discussion are ending. NBC's "Chuck," written and created by Josh Schwartz, has run episodes with Jihadi gangsters as the obvious villains. Even if the main villain seems to be a faction in the CIA, the "good guys" are still a beautiful CIA agent and grumpy, "Bill Maxwell" like NSA agent (brilliantly played by Adam Baldwin). Schwartz, of course, is only 32, and came of age in 1996.

Our Science Fiction in Television, in movies, even in Comic Books ignores Jihad, Muslim threats, Islam (alien and threatening in it's certainty and especially it's polygamy), the decentralized nature of life, and the spread of technology to even dirt poor people, countries, and places. Because to do so would be to acknowledge the bankruptcy of Political Correctness when faced by determined thugs. Who are both more numerous and more brutally determined. Laughable "conspiracies" abound in fantasy governments because that's how PC operates -- by "exposing" thought crimes.

All this can hold on for only so long. It's likely to die when really tough times come, not just in the nuclear blast of an American city dying by nuclear technology now available to any determined bidder, but the long ugly aftermath requiring discarding of the wealth and peace-driven Political Correctness, for pure survival.

In that regard, shows like "Battlestar Galactica," where people fight to "save" Political Correctness rather than do anything to survive, deserve to be called what they are: fantasy. Not Science Fiction.

Let's hope newer writers and publishers revive Science Fiction out of it's current, PC-fantasy doldrums.
...Read more

Why Is It Always 1968? Part 2

In my prior post, Why Is It Always 1968 Part 1 I discussed some of the factors accounting for the astonishing fact that culturally, from music, to food, to dress, to politics, to entertainment (with some exceptions), twenty year olds from 1968 (that's a full forty years ago folks) share the same tastes as twenty year olds from 2008. [Men and women who are Sixty Years old do not generally play any video games save the Wii sports games. Finding the games too difficult and boring.]

In comparison, a man who was twenty in 1928 would have almost nothing in common with a man of twenty in the year 1968. Those intervening years saw great social and technological change (that drove a lot of the social change). A switch from mostly horse-drawn or electrified street car local transportation and trains for long distance travel, to the private auto for local transportation and cheap jet air travel for long distance transportation. Travel from New York to Los Angeles did not take days but hours. Radio was replaced by Television as the entertainment of choice in the home. Recorded music at home went from expensive, and fairly bad sounding novelties, to cheaply available. Telephones went from novelty to ubiquity. Social attitudes about race, sex, women, and more changed drastically as people moved from cities to suburbs. In 1928 women had the vote (nationally) for only 8 years, by 1968 it was nearly half a century old. In 1928, the world was stable, with no threat of sudden destruction of cities imaginable, the US protected by wide oceans, and the idea of war and destruction visited upon the US simply inconceivable..

Yet the world of 1968 is at least as different from today as 1928 was to it. Computers have gone from corporate data rooms, costing tens of millions of dollars, and the size of refrigerators, to commodities sold in Warehouse stores. Mobile phones capable of recording and playing video are common. The Internet, cable and satellite TV, laptop computers, and free wifi have all made unimaginable amounts of data and media accessible almost anywhere, any time. Jet travel is even cheaper and more available (if far less pleasant). Attitudes about gays (including Gay Marriage) unimaginable in 1968 are routinely discussed today on Daytime Television.

Why is it, then, that our culture remains stuck in 1968?

One reason might be the men who shape it, versus the men who shaped culture previously. Using IMDB.com, I used the data to construct the following tables. First, the culture that was replaced by the Youth Culture of 1968, the major cultural creators from roughly 1935-1954:

Previous (1935-54)	Age in 1954	Year of Birth	Years before WWI End
John Ford	60	1894	24
Samuel Goldwyn	75	1879	24
Louis Mayer	70	1884	34
Jack Warner	62	1892	26
Orson Welles	39	1915	3
Preston Sturges	56	189	20
Howard Hawks	58	1896	22
Alfred Hitchcock	55	1899	15
Frank Capra	57	1897	21
Anthony Mann	48	1906	12
Charles Laughton	55	1899	19
J Lee Thompson	40	1914	4
John Huston	48	1906	12
Average	56	1898	20

There are some interesting things about this table. First, you'll note how Old these key movie makers were. The Average Age was 56, they were on average, born in 1898 and had twenty years before the end of WWI (when the public found out just how bad the debacle in the trenches was, and how many were lost).

For the most part, these men were men of the Nineteenth Century, not the Twentieth. It showed in the movies they made. More leisurely, with more adult content, less desire to use shock to cover up lack of ideas, and a focus on making films for all ages, older (past 20, anyway) and young alike. Remember, back in the era of 1935-54, as Ed Driscoll points out, men were supposed to act (in public at least) like adults. Not overgrown boys. And women, well acted like women. Not overgrown girls.

Therefore, even men of 21 were expected to conduct themselves as adult men. Not as lightly supervised boys. It's hard for people to understand, that in that era, it was common for men to wear hats, and jacket and suit pants, for nearly everything at hand save hard manual labor. Women wore dresses unless out on some picnic or working at manual labor. This included young men and women as well those in their forties.

While some might quibble with a name or two, in the list above, I think it's fairly representative. There are one-hit wonders (but what a wonder) like Charles Laughton's "Night of the Hunter" and those who churned out film after film, like Howard Hawks or John Ford.

Compare with those of today:

Person	Age in 2008	Year of Birth
JJ Abrams	42	1964
Joss Whedon	44	1964
Steve Soderberg	45	1963
Jerry Bruckheimer	63	1945
Josh Schwartz	32	1976
Chris Nolan	38	1970
Sam Raimi	49	1959
Alan Ball	51	1957
Seth Rogen	26	1982
Judd Apatow	41	1967
Kevin Williamson	43	1965
John Hughes	58	1950
George Lucas	62	1946
Steven Spielberg	64	1944
Tim Burton	50	1958
Average	47	1969

An average of nine years younger, and the birth age of 1969. Instead of the formative years in the Nineteenth Century, today's movie and television producers and directors and writers came of age in the 1970's and 1980's. Is it any wonder that the attitudes of those eras still persist.

In some ways, it's not always 1968. It's always 1979. Carter, Disco, and the depressing "certainties" of the late 1970's reign supreme. In film, the collective efforts of the men above seem mostly to want to remake "the China Syndrome" or "All the Presidents Men" instead of creating something new, or at least adult and mature. Middle aged men avoid risk, and that these men largely do. Without, sadly, making entertainment that is truly adult. There is nothing more pathetic than powerful and middle aged men engaging in posturing against the man when they are, in fact, the man.

The creative class of today, if the table above is any use at all, is neither adult and mature enough to create timeless entertainment, for adults of all ages, nor young enough to challenge the status quo and create something exciting and new. Instead movies and television recycle the entertainment of their youth. Which wasn't new then, and has gotten more dated since. If past history is any guide, we're in for at least ten to fifteen more years of this rot. Until the above group is simply too old to make movies and television any more.

Thus, the reasons why it's always 1968. Or perhaps, 1979.


...Read more

Why Is It Always 1968? Part 1

Recently , Ed Driscoll linked to my post, Comic Books Dirty Little Secret, noting that:

Much has been made by any number of commenters, from Steve Sailer, to John Derbyshire, to Spengler, to Mark Steyn, to in particular, Ed Driscoll, about the pathetic state of popular culture. Blogger Ed Driscoll in particular is fond of reminding us that in popular culture it's always 1968.

Which got me thinking. Why is it always 1968?

The answer is complex, but as always, depends on demographics. The Demographics of the Youth Culture, and the creators of culture in general. The short version is that America ran out of young people. The long version is that technological stasis and a frozen ideology have put popular culture in amber. Though there are signs that might be changing.

In the short version, Americans stopped having kids, in sufficient numbers, to sustain a critical mass of young people. The Census Bureau provides enough data from the online 2000 and 1990 census to produce the following graphs.

First, the number of 20 year olds between 1955 and 2000:

[Click Image to Enlarge]

As you can see, there's a story there. The Depression made children expensive, and the war years removed most young men at home, with the remainder in great uncertainty. Not until 1947 did people have kids in greater numbers, which is why the huge jump in 20 year olds from 1966 to 1967. Lost in the nostalgia for the Sixties is the demographic reality that underpinned most of it (and it's predecessor the 1950's). First the shadow of the Depression, which produced understandably relatively few children, and then the uncertainty and chaos of the War years. People started having more and more kids, steadily, until 1960. At which point, birth rates declined. There is a big drop from 1965 to 1966, and bottoming out in 1969.

My hunch is that this temporary drop in babies, which recovered somewhat in 1970, and thereafter dropped even lower in the following decade with only a slight recovery in 1979, was due to social changes (likely the widespread availability and effectiveness of the pill and condom, along with lack of social stigma associated with same), combined with bad economics. Regardless, people had fewer kids in the late 1960's and 1970's, compared to the peak years of 1947-1965. About half a million less, never really recovering, and the cumulative effect of the decreasing birth rate had a huge effect.

Fewer young people hungering for a different Youth Culture than that of 1968.

The graph below (with data from the 2000 and 1990 Census) show more graphically the trend:

[Click Image to Enlarge]

[Yes, the numbers don't agree in the two graphs. I assume it's due to mortality, the 2000 Census is used for the Year 2000 20-year olds, while the 1990 Census was used for the # of 20-year olds in 1990, 1980, 1970, and 1960. Mortality tends to increase after age 50 or so, so the older census is probably more accurate. Unfortunately, the Census Bureau does not have older Census online, but the important thing is that the trends in both graphs agree. Not the absolute numbers. For convenience, I used the 2000 Census to produce the year-by-year graph of 20-year olds. Since it plugged into Open Office Calc easily.]

For whatever reason, around 1966, people stopped having children, in America. Without an ever increasing number of Youth, there is much more risk in the Youth Culture. This makes the popular culture stagnant. Since there's no ability to gamble, as there was in the late 1960's, when the number of Youth just kept increasing year by year. It's telling that very few new products for kids have been introduced since the 1950's-60's, no Hula-Hoops (1957), no Frisbees (1957), or Slinkies (1948), or Superball (1965), or Silly Putty (1957). All notably introduced when there were lots and lots of ten year olds around, increasing every year. There's been nothing like them since, sadly.

This is particularly important when even the cheapest movie, or hit song, costs a lot to market. Lack of a payoff will guarantee risk avoidance. Which coincidentally, is just what we have.

As Ed Driscoll points out, in 1968, the world of 1928 was forty years old and far distant. No twenty year olds shared the musical tastes of the generation of 1928. A twenty year old and a sixty year old that year would have little in common. They would not dress alike, they would not listen to the same songs (indeed music from 1928 would rapidly propel a twenty year old in 1968 as rapidly outside of hearing range of said song as possible). They would not eat the same food. They would certainly not hold the same social attitudes, on much of anything.

Yet as Ed Driscoll points out, consider how a twenty year old and sixty year old today would share almost all the same attitudes. A twenty year old would listen to the Rolling Stones, just like a sixty year old would. Or the Beatles. They would dress alike, in Jeans and T-shirts, mostly. They'd eat the same food, and share the same social attitudes. Far from repelling a twenty year old out of hearing range, the music of 1968 would not seem "old fashioned."

Moreover, a sixty year old fan of say, Louis Armstrong or Al Jolson in 1968, would have difficulty even comprehending the music of the Beatles, or Rolling Stones, much less enjoy them both as simple continuation of the music of his youth. No such adjustment need be made by today's sixty year old, who can listen to say, Arctic Monkeys or the Killers and enjoy both as natural progressions of the music of his youth.

In some ways, this heralds a return to the Nineteenth Century. A twenty year old in 1828, and a twenty year old in 1868, would probably share the same attitudes, manner of dress, taste in food, and music, in 1868. It's tempting to pencil in the rapid social changes of the Twentieth Century as "normal" but History suggests that century was atypical. It's quite possible the frozen in amber nature of our culture, with all it's negatives will remain with us for a long time.

What stands out in the Twentieth Century is the role of technology in "breaking" the popular culture of the past. Radio enabled youth to stay up late, even in rural towns, and be connected to the Swing Bands of the 1920's and 1930's, even up through the 1940's. Including bands that were all Black. There was no color line in the radio broadcasts, and bands like Duke Ellington, to artists like Miles Davis found fans around the nation based on their radio broadcasts. To say nothing of Glenn Miller or Tommy Dorsey or Artie Shaw.

This was followed by Television, which allowed people to skip the movies, and cheap recorded music, first on 45 rpm singles, and then 33 and a third rpm "long playing" records. Playable on cheap phonographs that produced acceptable, to later excellent stereo sound. FM "College" Radio helped promote unknown bands, and the availability of cheap electric guitars, sound systems, and crucially, cassette tapes (to pass the music along from friend to friend, of unknown bands) helped form an infrastructure that allowed fringe acts to play cheap dives to polish their performance skills, if for little pay. Gain exposure in better clubs with tapes passed around and College Radio taking the place of the late night AM Radio broadcasts. Get featured on major radio and television programs, to reach a mass audience (of young people) who could be relied upon to buy the records in large numbers.

For a while, cheap "youth exploitation" movies from AIP and other outfits allowed directors and writers like say, Steven Spielberg to hone their craft and progress up the same ladder or experimentation to mass market appeal in movies. Sam Raimi, for example, was a director in the horror ghetto before he moved up to Spider-Man. Sadly, that path is gone now.

While the lack of an upwards path for movies is understandable, given the expense of making movies, that of music is not. After all, today's modern technology allows bands to make their own MP3s, freely available, on their own website. There are still plenty of clubs to play in, College Radio, with ever-new DJs, looking for new bands and sounds to make their mark with listeners. Equipment has become cheaper than ever. One might even argue that the availability of ITunes on nearly every computer makes it the equivalent of the Ed Sullivan Show in 1965. With cheap video compression and greater availability of high-speed internet, one wonders why more people like Felicia Day are not constructing their own websites to sell their own productions, made cheap and fast and good, like AIP or Hammer Horror films, on DVD or ITunes (since Apple will sell videos as well as music). [Check out the link, her project "the Guild" is hilarious and free.] Heck YouTube allows "free samples" in the way that radio airplay on AM radio drove the hit singles of Elvis ,the Beach Boys, and the Beatles.

My guess is that it's due to a culture that avoids risk. This culture, like the minor aristocracy of Jane Austen's day, is obsessed with protecting status and prestige against any downward spiral. Ever present in Austen's books is the looming threat that all could come crashing down, to catastrophic poverty. For much of today's culture, that same fear, animates most everything creative people do. It's not as if there are enough opportunities in a huge pool of young people to overcome that stasis anymore. No reward to make the risk worthwhile. There's also something about the men who create popular culture in and of themselves that makes them risk averse, something for my next post.

Risk avoidance is made worse, of course, by a culture of Politically Correct Multiculturalism. If American creativity, among Whites and Blacks, was animated by huge amounts of cultural borrowing, today's insistence on separateness, makes that impossible, and a violation of the cultural aristocracy's unwritten but powerful rules of etiquette. Elvis, Louis Armstrong, Sidney Bechet, Miles Davis, Mark Twain, and Little Richard all borrowed across racial and ethnic lines. Particularly in places like along the Mississippi River, or New Orleans, or Chicago, Kansas City, and New York, with exposure to different people using different concepts and tools, musicians, writers, and artists would borrow all the time from people of vastly different races and backgrounds, simply because they saw the devices and tools working, effectively and sought to combine them with their own tools for their own uses. Popular music has particularly suffered, as Black artists no longer borrow freely from White artists, as say Marvin Gaye or Otis Redding did (from Frank Sinatra), and White artists no longer find anything of value in the sterile grounds of uber-macho Rap.

But possibly the most influential factor in accounting for why it's always 1968 is who are the key culture shapers, and just when they came of age. A subject for my next post.




...Read more