HAiR: The Intellectual Conversation Thread — Page 4

Morning, everyone!

Silly question if I may... what the hell is a "fangirl"?? That has to be one of the dumbest name I've ever heard, really!

---

Oh boy.

---

How long before you stop derailing any discussion to go back and complain?

Your method of "love" in the love thread alienated other fans from being able to talk about the show. You ignored all posts that weren't silly, shallow fun, until finally, there were only a handful of posters left in the thread. And YOU'RE the one still playing the victim? Just accept that some people want to talk about Hair in a different way than you do, and let them. Now please, drop it or take it to PMs.

"I don't think it's cool to turn a thread about something else into a thread about yourself." -AndAllThatJazz22, 8/16/09 at 10:19 AM

---

Updated On: 8/25/09 at 11:59 AM

backwoodsbarbie:

Pink Floyd's first album "The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn" made in 1967 has a lot of psychedelic instrumentals, particularly "Interstellar Overdrive" and "Pow R Toc H". They were a very, very different band back then from the one who made "The Wall" many years later.

There are a lot of songs with long instrumental solos - perhaps you can just use those long instrumental sections of songs with the verses edited out. "Light My Fire" and lots of things by The Doors have instrumental sections that go on for a long time. The Zombies' "Time Of The Season" is like that, too.

There's an internet radio station called The Technicolor Web Of Sound (I found it in the iTunes radio section under "Golden Oldies") that plays lots of very obscure old psychedelic music. I listen to it a lot just for fun, and if you paid attention to the songs on there, you could probably find some really off-the-wall stuff that would work perfectly. You might even email the guy who runs the station to ask for suggestions, since I'll bet he knows every single piece of psychedelic music ever recorded, no matter how obscure.

Have fun - sounds like a cool project!

orangestittles
"How long before you stop derailing any discussion to go back and complain? "
The topic on THIS thread at the moment is about 'fangirling'. I posted a comment agreeing with the dramamama611's comment on fangirling stating that I agreed with her definition of fangirls and I also said that I don't think that is going on with HAiR.

"You ignored all posts that weren't silly, shallow fun, until finally, there were only a handful of posters left in the thread."
I have participated in pretty much EVERY conversation on that thread.If it was silly, I participated. If it was serious, I participated. I enjoy both types of conversations. Besides, you talk as if I am the only one posting silly things. Read that thread again, skittles.

"Just accept that some people want to talk about Hair in a different way than you do."
Here's what I said: I'm willing to participate in this thread as much as I can because I agree with the idea that HAIR has a lot to offer other than nudity and cast interaction. I enjoy talking about the deeper aspects in HAIR.

"If people weren't ashamed of fangirling then maybe Hair fans would be capable of reconciling their intellect and their id and sustaining a balanced discussion in one thread."
I agree. It's not like we haven't had any 'smart' discussions on the other thread. I don't understand why there can't be room for fun and seriousness on one thread.

---

True, taylor. True. Every show has its crazies, that's not a secret. My larger point was that HAIR doesn't have a bad reputation for having a rude, crazy fanbase. I will be the first to admit it when a fanbase is crazy. I've loved many fangirl shows including RENT, Spring Awakening, and Legally Blonde..I'll say it. Their fanbases are horrible.

---

Updated On: 8/25/09 at 12:21 PM

Apparently, emcee is Dr. Sam Beckett, who has been brought here to change any and all threads for the better. His only guide on this journey is Al, a Clippy like character that only emcee can see and read. And so emcee finds himself leaping from thread to thread, striving to put intelligence where once went squealing and hoping each time that the next thread will be the thread home.

Back on what I came here to post, after eight, I can't support a country because that is just blind obediance. I can support ideals, I support movements. For example, I support the necessitation of universal healthcare. I support pro-choice for abortion. I do not support the war in Iraq. I also support what Obama is trying to do. Unfortunately, there are so many people against him that "trying" is the operative word. The problem with America, I find, is that it is too damn big for itself so if you do something in the best interest of a certain people, half are going to disagree with you or will try to stop you for their own selfish reasons. Unfortunately, also the majority of people out there are dumb and just spout out what is spoonfed to them through the media without fully understanding what they are or aren't supporting.

My grandfather always says that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels which is a quote from Samuel Johnson. My perfect country would be something akin to true socialism where everybody gets an equal amount an enough to sustain life, but unfortunately with the way people are today - greedy - it would never work. It's funny. I've always tried to follow my heart. My mother was an artist and she learned the hard way how hard it is to live in this economy being an artist and so she tried to stifle the artist that grew in me. I love to sing, I love to act, and most of all I love to write-I have a BA in English creative writing. What am I going to school for now? Medicine. Of course I plan to use my skills to help people who can't afford proper healthcare through programs like Doctors Without Borders. I'm a simple girl; I don't ask for much: a dishwasher, central air and the ability to go to the theatre whenever I want.

So, once again, what kind of country do I support? The kind that takes care of all of its subjects. When I walk down the street and see that same guy asking for something to eat, the shanty town that's been erected on the steps of Saint Pat's, or all the people in the emergency room because they can't afford primary care docs, I know that this isn't that country.

---

There is ALWAYS more we all could be doing.

I can't WAIT to see Taking Woodstock, even though the book is not well written. I might try to take it in between the Equality Planning Rally and seeing The 39 Steps (finally.)

---

Good lord. This is ridiculous. How many times am I going to have to explain the same thing? How slowly do I have to spell it out? This time, for an adult, nonetheless. I voiced that I found it difficult to have a broader, content-driven discussion in the other thread, and apparently the solution (not my solution, by the way, I did not start this thread, I suggested it as a possibility) became splitting it into two threads, rather than an effort to expand the content of the existing one. Was there a place for the kinds of subjects that you seem to have been sinking your teeth into there? What's that? No? I thought not.

Why is voicing a frustration that I know was not mine alone such a problem? I never said what was going on on the other thread was BAD, nor have I ever expressed that I didn't want to participate in it; people seem to be conveniently missing that distinction. I said I'd like to see more and different discussion going on about the show. So, I don't know why my trying to participate in both discussions is such an issue for you, either.

My intention when I posited this problem on the other thread was not to create two groups who weren't "allowed" to communicate; it wasn't to create alienation, but rather the opposite. Clearly people have decided to make the entire situation solely my responsibility, and so now I feel somehow obligated to reinforce that that was not what I meant.

I'm not lost and in search of a home, thanks. I didn't realize I had to pick one thread in the entirety of BWW and stay there. I also didn't think I would have to spell this out so obviously. Your uber-pretentious method of insult is appreciated, though.

I'd love to be able to say that perhaps we should try to get back to topic now rather than letting this devolve into the throwing and defense against personal attacks, but lest I be accused of trying to play Thread God.

---

Updated On: 8/25/09 at 05:32 PM

She's right, it's one of my special skillz.

(At least someone sort of changed the subject.)

I'm looking forward to the movie. I think if it weren't an Ang Lee film I'd be quicker to worry that it might be cheesy and ridiculous, but I'm excited to see it.

And backwoodsbarbie, I definitely second wendilin's recommendation of the Allman Brothers.

---

I love how many people from my generation claim to have had hippie parents, when they or their folks are probably exaggerating greatly.

Heh. I was thinking the same thing. I wonder how many of these parents would say they were hippies, and how many actually came of age in the early 70s and just smoked a lot of pot to make up for it. It's cool now, but let's face it, hippies were probably the emo kids of their day.

A lot of people are comparing the feelings of the 60's to what is going on now. But I'm not so sure.

I agree. Someone made the comment that Hair is about "being young"- as if every young person across time can understand what it's like to grow up in an era where the National Guard is used to attack unarmed civilians peacefully protesting, the figures of hope for change are being assassinated in their prime and we're being forced to fight in a war we don't believe in (well, at least not LITERALLY forced like they were). As citizens we're in a much different, more secure country then they were then. I think the momentum for societal change is more prevalent for the first time since the 60s, but that doesn't make it the same. It doesn't have to be the same to be able to appreciate the show. Not to call Hair a period piece in that it's dated, but it definitely does represent a type of culture that doesn't exist anymore.

---

Updated On: 8/25/09 at 07:44 PM

This is going back awhile in the thread, but has always intrigued me. Leia said: "On another note, you mention how Claude is more worried about dying than anything. What I find so ironic about that is that in the end, he dies, but he gets what he wanted - to be invisible."

In "I'm Black/Ain't Got No" I've always found Claude's line "I'm invisible" to be more of a realization - and a sad one at that - rather than something he wanted to be. I've interpreted it as being more foreshadowing than anything. I've only seen the show once, but have the CR on repeat practically on repeat so this may be a bit too out there... At the end of his trip when everyone is screaming "Claude!" and he pauses and says "I'm here, like it or not they got me" seems to continue that idea of his invisibility to his friends. Perhaps this actual invisibility is spurred by his actually going to war? (now I think I'm reading too far into this) Correct me if I'm wrong, but his feelings towards Sheila are invisible to her, his true passions are invisible to his parents, once he enlists he is invisible to his friends (momentarily in the above example, and then actually when he is in Vietnam), and I think his feelings towards the war are invisible to himself (as a previous poster wrote, he could have been a conscientious observer), and he is ultimately invisible to anyone (when he dies...). I don't think it's something he wants to be, but the first two examples are certainly aspects of regular teenager-ness.
Anyone have any thoughts? Am I just reading far too much into one line?

ps orangeskittles, I think living in DC gives us a different view of the political world, and I think we are super lucky for that! (are you actually from DC or surrounding?)

EDIT: So I just reread dramamama's post on this, and my speculation was just silly. Apparently it's been discussed in interviews and Claude does want to be invisible. oops

---

Updated On: 8/25/09 at 11:00 PM