A question to Americans

[rwill25]

Simply hearing a song can be enough to make somebody put down the gun...

If that's not considered a "major impact" on the world, then I don't know what is.

:2 cents:

I was about to kill myself until I read Chef's post!

just sayin'... :dunno:

 

[Boobinator]

Thanks for some very informative replies, and for not flaming me

Anyway, I do believe it (authoritarianism) is a more American than European matter in recent history. People from all around the world knows who Obama is, but I hardly believe anyone can name three of the senators in your senate. Similarly, most oriented people know (or has some idea) what party or flank is ruling the major European countries (France, Germany, Italy, UK etc), but few can name any ministers. No prime minister in any European country has near the kind of power of the US president. I might be pushing it here, but I have a feeling you (Americans) vote rather for the person running in a presidency/senator election than his/her party. On the contrary, as most European countries are parliamentary, we vote for a party and the top guy sort of just comes along with it. So charisma means far less in European elections than in American. In fact, I'm sometimes a bit baffled to see how uninformative presidential campaign speeches are.
"America is great, God bless Americans" (followed by people cheering)

Anyway, no need to rant about that. I just firmly believe that despite our many similarities, there's a big difference between European and American culture. Though lately this line is being blurred out as we trade quite a lot of culture with each other (and to my disliking we fetch quite a lot of shit from the US, like Michael Bay for example lol)


In response to what Chef said:
Of course certain cultural figures can have an impact in politics too. But I think you overestimate their importance. This is exactly what I mean with being too person-centered. Just because media hype these fellows (like Dylan) up, people think it's thank to them wars end or thanks to them world hunger ends. I mean yeah, a song can open up people's minds, but that's about it. It doesn't provide any actual solutions and it doesn't give money to the poor. It's just music. Also, I think you exaggerate how emotional people (and particularly powerful people) are. So people cheer and shout, what about it? 50 Cent or Tom Jones can make people shout, but that doesn't mean they can change the global economy or political situation.

 

[ChefChiTown]

In response to what Chef said:
Of course certain cultural figures can have an impact in politics too. But I think you overestimate their importance. This is exactly what I mean with being too person-centered. Just because media hype these fellows (like Dylan) up, people think it's thank to them wars end or thanks to them world hunger ends. I mean yeah, a song can open up people's minds, but that's about it. It doesn't provide any actual solutions and it doesn't give money to the poor. It's just music. Also, I think you exaggerate how emotional people (and particularly powerful people) are. So people cheer and shout, what about it? 50 Cent or Tom Jones can make people shout, but that doesn't mean they can change the global economy or political situation.

Once again, are you serious?

I started a thread about Aretha Franklin's song "Respect" a few days ago and told the true story behind it. "Respect" was one of the main catalysts for the entire feminist movement in the United States. The release of that song single handedly helped fuel the fire inside of women all over this country, given them the pride, strength and courage that they needed to stand up for themselves.

Without "Respect", A SONG, the feminist movement in the United States might not have ever happened. That song helped motivate and inspire women to fight for their rights and, since the song's release in 1967, there have been great advances in how this country views it's women; both socially and politically. So, to say that music can't change a political situation is a wrong thing to say.

Also, musicians do other things besides make music. It's a cliche example, but Bono, the lead singer of a rock band, is one of the most charitable people in the entire world. He has raised millions upon millions upon millions of dollars for people in need and he has donated millions upon millions upon millions of his own dollars to people in need. I'm willing to bet that Bono's influence (financially) has helped feed millions of people all across the world. That might not be changing the forefront of a nation's economy, but his financial contributions are feeding people and keeping them alive; something their own nation's economy couldn't even provide them with.

:2 cents:

 

[Boobinator]

Feminism existed decades before Aretha Franklin was even born. I hardly believe it would avoid spreading and gaining ground in the US eventually. But that's beside what this topic is about. As far as Bono goes, I'll give you a point. There are however numerous philantropists that have donated much more money than him and people still haven't heard of them.

And also, charity money isn't overwhelming in the same way a political decision or historical outcome can be. Bono has no doubt saved several lives, but he hasn't rewritten the world map and will most likely not be read about in history books 200 years from now as a significant person of the 20th century. (That said he will naturally be remembered for his deeds, but that's quite a far step from being a historical person.)

 

[Elwood70]

I started a thread about Aretha Franklin's song "Respect" a few days ago and told the true story behind it. "Respect" was one of the main catalysts for the entire feminist movement in the United States.

.....and it was written by a man....(Otis Redding).

 

[ChefChiTown]

Feminism existed decades before Aretha Franklin was even born. I hardly believe it would avoid spreading and gaining ground in the US eventually. But that's beside what this topic is about.

No, that's exactly what this topic is about. You asked why we (Americans) idolized people like Elvis Presley. You even said the following in your original post...

Like yeah, Elvis Presley made some best-selling records, but certain people wanted him on the Times 100 most influential people of the 20th century list. I mean, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to actually believe that a guy shaking his arse and playing guitar will ever have any major impact on the world (except for maybe making women cum in their panties.)

Also, the major advancements in the United States' feminist movement occured in the late 60's and 70's. It was during that time in which society (in the United States) began to shift it's view on women. Women were looked at as being submissive housewives that should do nothing but make babies, clean the house, have dinner ready when the man came home for dinner and have sex with him when he wanted to. Women began to stand up for themselves and demanded a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Things changed because of that movement and the men in this country began to treat women differently; with respect. Aretha Franklin's song, "Respect", served as more than just a theme song for the movement; it was also inspiration.

As far as Bono goes, I'll give you a point. There are however numerous philantropists that have donated much more money than him and people still haven't heard of them.

And also, charity money isn't overwhelming in the same way a political decision or historical outcome can be. Bono has no doubt saved several lives, but he hasn't rewritten the world map and will most likely not be read about in history books 200 years from now as a significant person of the 20th century. (That said he will naturally be remembered for his deeds, but that's quite a far step from being a historical person.)

If people remember him for being a great humanitarian, how is that NOT historical?

Just because somebody doesn't appear in a text book doesn't mean that they weren't a significant part of history. Here's a name that you won't find in any history books: Auguste Escoffier. I'm willing to bet that you don't have a clue who he is, but he influenced the entire world by revolutionizing something that everybody does...eat. Auguste Escoffier single-handedly revolutionized cooking, the foods we eat, restaurant service and food production. Chances are, he is responsible for the meal you had for dinner tonight, in more ways than one. Cooking techniques, recipes, etc. He changed the world forever, but you won't find his name in a history book.

Also, just because somebody does appear in a text book doesn't mean that they were a significant part of history. When I was still in high school, one of my history books talked about Colonel Sanders. That's right, the Kentucky Fried Chicken guy. What did he do that changed the world? Absolutely nothing. He owned a few fast food restaurants that sold fried chicken. Is that extremely important to our history? No, absolutely not.

 

[Boobinator]

I don't really see your initial point, but I still don't believe that any musician so far has had enough impact to be deemed one of the hundred most influential people of their century. MAYBE the classical composers. But they lived in smaller worlds, and their music was arguably a bit more of an achievement that playing five chords and singing (the artistic value might not be higher, but that's a matter of personal opinion.)

Like I said, I think you drastically over-emphasize the importance of what music does. There may be an amount of people whose lives are overwhelmed when hearing a song or album -- but I usually call those people adolescent.

What I said about Elvis does not mean that I think musicians can't influence people. But their music alone is not enough to compare to how a great inventor, politician, warlord or CEO does. I'm not going to explain this further because you seem to have your mind set on disagreeing with me on this, and I respect that, so let's just leave it.

Because it is indeed beside my initial point. My initial topic was meant to create a discussion as to how European and American culture differs when it comes to cult of personalities. Like how some people believe that just because Elvis was a successful musician he was some sort of god. The guy took drugs like your average addict, and ate a lot of junk food like the average fatty. He's just a person like everyone else.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I don't really see your initial point, but I still don't believe that any musician so far has had enough impact to be deemed one of the hundred most influential people of their century. MAYBE the classical composers. But they lived in smaller worlds, and their music was arguably a bit more of an achievement that playing five chords and singing (the artistic value might not be higher, but that's a matter of personal opinion.)

Like I said, I think you drastically over-emphasize the importance of what music does. There may be an amount of people whose lives are overwhelmed when hearing a song or album -- but I usually call those people adolescent.

Listening to a song can make someone cry. Some people don't even cry when their parents die. Explain to me how that isn't a "major impact". In your words, you said...

I mean, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to actually believe that a guy shaking his arse and playing guitar will ever have any major impact on the world (except for maybe making women cum in their panties.)

How is creating and controlling a person's emotions on a daily basis NOT a "major impact"...??? Just because a musician doesn't end world hunger or discover the cure for cancer doesn't mean that they can't have a tremendous amount of impact and influence on people around the world.

What I said about Elvis does not mean that I think musicians can't influence people. But their music alone is not enough to compare to how a great inventor, politician, warlord or CEO does. I'm not going to explain this further because you seem to have your mind set on disagreeing with me on this, and I respect that, so let's just leave it.

Music, a song, can be enough to keep someone from killing themself. I don't see many inventors, politicians, warlords or CEOs wielding that sort of power. You think that we (Americans) over-emphasize the power and influence of music, but I think you (individually) under-emphasize the power and influence of music.

Because it is indeed beside my initial point. My initial topic was meant to create a discussion as to how European and American culture differs when it comes to cult of personalities. Like how some people believe that just because Elvis was a successful musician he was some sort of god. The guy took drugs like your average addict, and ate a lot of junk food like the average fatty. He's just a person like everyone else.

One word...Beckham. David Beckham is a normal person, just like everyone else, but Europeans idolize him like he's a god. You think our country idolizes celebrities that don't do anything important, but you should probably take a look at yourselves for a moment.

 

[Boobinator]

Listening to a song can make someone cry. Some people don't even cry when their parents die. Explain to me how that isn't a "major impact". In your words, you said...

This is the last time I'm going to reply to you dishing out the same arguments. I never ever denied the fact that music and culture is important. But putting Elvis, a man who didn't write his own songs, next to a person like Marie Curie, would just be fucking beyond moronic retardation. NOT because music isn't important (read: music is important too) but because shaking your booty and playing chords can't in all honesty compare to discovering the phenomenon of radioactivity. Yeah, Elvis songs makes a small share of the world's population cry. But Mrs Curie's pioneering indirectly created power (which in turn means heat, cooked food, fresh and hot water, light etc) for billions of people over decades, it lead to destruction of two Japanese cities and the death of countless people, it lead to the creation of much more useful submarines, it helped save thousands of lives through nuclear pharmacy, etc...
Needless to say, what I mean is that putting Elvis next to someone who has done so much more than him just means giving in to an absurd cult of personality, where you compare him to people way out of his league. Yes, this is my personal opinion, but I'm fairly convinced I have at least one half of the world's population with me on this one. There, I've made an unsually pointless rant about the obvious and off-topic, you can either ponder it, or not. I don't really care anymore.

By the way, did I mention I too believe music is important?

One word...Beckham. David Beckham is a normal person, just like everyone else, but Europeans idolize him like he's a god. You think our country idolizes celebrities that don't do anything important, but you should probably take a look at yourselves for a moment.

Which is exactly why I wanted to end this argument with you. Eventually you would start mud slinging back at me, which is not something I sought for. I asked a question out of curiousity, interested in how sensible Americans on this board view this matter from their POV, and if they've also noticed this trend I speak of.
I can't really speak for Beckham, except my personal opinion being he's an overrated football player. But I don't live in the UK, so I haven't experienced any form of interest in him other than when talking football.

 

[Ceska]

First off, a little disclaimer. When I say "you" in my post, I mean Americans in general. Don't get offended by my ideas if they don't apply to you (as explained in the last paragraph.)

If there is one thing that never seizes to amaze me when comparing American to European culture -- it has to be how you idolize certain people and your dogmatic view on normal, mortal human beings. Like yeah, Elvis Presley made some best-selling records, but certain people wanted him on the Times 100 most influential people of the 20th century list. I mean, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to actually believe that a guy shaking his arse and playing guitar will ever have any major impact on the world (except for maybe making women cum in their panties.)

Or another example. People hailing this or that president as a messiah. Unless America is a dictatorship, no man can't honestly be given as much as attention as your prez does. The president is a representative of his/her party, which in a democracy means that he/she, just like anyone else, has to submit to majority rules and not just boss around like some Stalin or Hitler. That's how a democracy works. As a side note, having a single person being given as much attention as the US president kinda goes against what America was supposed to stand for back in the days -- when Europe was the continent filled with snobby monarchs "chosen by god". So question is, do you really believe in the president's power as much as it appears?

Anyway, like I said, my intention with this thread wasn't to bash the US or Americans in general. There are many positive things about you folks too, and I'm not stupider than to understand that the vast majority of you are normal people like myself, in fact I've gotten a pretty good impressions of Americans overall online (especially through this board.) So lastly, don't turn this thread into an anti-Europe agenda either. Just try to explain to a curious European how America works

Cheers

The obsession with media personalities and political figures is not solely an American one. Europeans obsess over their athletes, political figures, and musicians to the same degree. (OMG what are "Posh" and "Becks" up to now?)

Celebrity obsession harming British students: http://in.movies.yahoo.com/news-detail/21417/Celebrity-obsession-harming-British-students.html

When they are not obsessed with their own athletes, celebrities or politicians they are obsessed with American celebrities and politicians. (Many Europeans are as obsessed or perhaps more obsessed with Bush or Obama than most Americans.) Oh those Americans are sooooo stupid – they pay so much attention to their president (but not us). Their politicians are soooo corrupt and power hungry (but not ours).

Your comments on American presidential power, however, do point to a valid and alarming trend. Many (I think it would be fair to say most) Americans place too high an expectation on the office of their president. They attribute failures and success entirely on presidents to a degree that is not appropriate or accurate. There are several reasons for this.

One reason is simply a lack of understanding of the political process. They fail to understand that they don't elect a president to fix all their problems (economic, military, or otherwise). They fail to understand that America is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. Presidents do not and should not have the power to fix all things. Presidents and Congress perpetuate this misguided perception when it serves their interests.

As a result, over the past several decades Congress has abdicated many of its responsibilities to the President. The people no longer respect their Congressmen yet they do not take responsibility themselves for electing honest and effective representatives. Both Congress and the people give up power to avoid responsibility or accountability. Instead they place their hopes and expectations in the hands of a mythic office that some scholars have labeled the "Imperial President."

"ANDREW BACEVICH: I am expressing ... what many of us sense, even if many of us don't really want to confront the implications. The Congress, especially with regard to matters related to national security policy, has thrust power and authority to the executive branch. We have created an imperial presidency. The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good. The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress....................we the American people, refuse to look in that mirror. And to see the extent to which the problems that we face really lie within..............We look to the President, to the next President. You know, we know that the current President's a failure and a disappoint (sic) - we look to the next President to fix things. And, of course, as long as we have this expectation that the next President is going to fix things then, of course, that lifts all responsibility from me to fix things."

RON PAUL: "The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our Founding Fathers wanted."

ANDREW BACEVICH: "Beginning with the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960, "the occupant of the White House has become a combination of demigod, father figure and, inevitably, the betrayer of inflated hopes. Pope. Pop star. Scold. Scapegoat. Crisis manager. Commander in Chief. Agenda settler. Moral philosopher. Interpreter of the nation's charisma. Object of veneration. And the butt of jokes. All rolled into one........."

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/transcript1.html
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10147

 

[ChefChiTown]

This is the last time I'm going to reply to you dishing out the same arguments. I never ever denied the fact that music and culture is important. But putting Elvis, a man who didn't write his own songs, next to a person like Marie Curie, would just be fucking beyond moronic retardation. NOT because music isn't important (read: music is important too) but because shaking your booty and playing chords can't in all honesty compare to discovering the phenomenon of radioactivity. Yeah, Elvis songs makes a small share of the world's population cry. But Mrs Curie's pioneering indirectly created power (which in turn means heat, cooked food, fresh and hot water, light etc) for billions of people over decades, it lead to destruction of two Japanese cities and the death of countless people, it lead to the creation of much more useful submarines, it helped save thousands of lives through nuclear pharmacy, etc...
Needless to say, what I mean is that putting Elvis next to someone who has done so much more than him just means giving in to an absurd cult of personality, where you compare him to people way out of his league. Yes, this is my personal opinion, but I'm fairly convinced I have at least one half of the world's population with me on this one. There, I've made an unsually pointless rant about the obvious and off-topic, you can either ponder it, or not. I don't really care anymore.

By the way, did I mention I too believe music is important?

Wow, you're taking this to heart for some reason. I wasn't aware that we were in some sort of heated, animalistic argument with one another.

Allow me to say this...I hate Elvis. I think he sucks and I'm not fan. As an individual, as a person, Elvis doesn't compare with somebody like Albert Einstein. I will agree with an argument like that. With that being said, I just think you are ignoring the true power of music. Just because a song can't cure diseases or end world poverty doesn't mean that it isn't an extremely important, powerful and influential thing.

Personally, I think that comparing a song to the discovery of a scientific breakthrough is, and I hate this phrase, apples and oranges.

There are a lot of avenues in which music has influenced people throughout the entire world for eons and eons. Music is used in ceremonies and people from all around the world use it to signify a celebration. Music is used in almost every religion, in some way, shape or form. Music is a tool that can be used to "let go" and have fun. Music can set the mood, changing one's emotional state for the better. Music is used in TV and movies to make them more interesting, so people pay attention to them and don't lose interest. Music is used in teaching children simple things, like the alphabet or the state capitals because memory is provoked through the use of song. Music influenced MTV and every MTV network that followed (VH1, Nickelodeon, CMT, Comedy Central, Spike, Noggin, etc). Without music, none of those networks would exist. Music is everywhere and it's hard to ignore it's power.

The point I am making is that, even though music isn't in the forefront of creating miracles, it is still effecting people's lives on a daily and extremely powerful basis.

Which is exactly why I wanted to end this argument with you. Eventually you would start mud slinging back at me, which is not something I sought for. I asked a question out of curiousity, interested in how sensible Americans on this board view this matter from their POV, and if they've also noticed this trend I speak of.
I can't really speak for Beckham, except my personal opinion being he's an overrated football player. But I don't live in the UK, so I haven't experienced any form of interest in him other than when talking football.

The reason I brought up David Beckham is because you seemed as if American's were stupid for idolizing people such as musicians, so I wanted to point out that Europe does the same exact thing. I wasn't trying to insult you or "sling back" at you. I was just pointing out that Europeans are no different than Americans, in respect to the idolization of regular people.

:2 cents:

 

[marquis2]

So being a royal is a money-losing situation? I think not. What is her role in the country? If she is in charge, what recent political decisions did she made? What is their role in England? Is the country a monarchy or a democracy?

Her role is Head of State (and also of many other countries) and Head of the Commonwealth.
She has to sign all Acts of Parliament to make them legal but in fact never refuses.She advises Ministers and having been around for a long time has accumulated rather a lot of wisdom which is respected.She represents us internationally and has met every significant foreign Head of State since Roosevelt.
The big thing is that our Head of State is not a politician.
On accession to the Throne she acquired the income from the Crown Estates (around £200 million a year) which she turned over to the Treasury in return for an annual payment of about half this called the Civil List (most of which is spent on wages for staff and other expenses which would be needed for any Head of State anyway) so costs the taxpayer nothing.

 

[JohnnyThompson]

Are you serious? Do you have any idea how powerful music can be?

Music is the universal language that everyone can understand. Music is a powerful tool that can be used to send strong messages of faith, hope and love. Music is so powerful that people often turn to it in times of need, despair and depression.

People connect with music and relate to the feelings and emotions that it produces. Go to a concert and just watch the people in attendance. The simple stroke of a C chord can make tens of thousands of people scream at the top of their lungs in excitement.

Music is heavily connected with memories, both good and bad. When someone hears a song, they almost instantly get a rush of emotion flowing inside of them. Music makes people smile. Music makes people laugh. Music makes people cry.

Billy Joel's "Only The Good Die Young" might remind someone of their mother, who passed away at a young age. Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" might remind someone of their high school friends. The Doobie Brothers' "Black Water" might just remind someone of simpler time. Music creates and controls emotion.

A lot of the time, when someone feels like shit, they will turn on the radio or put on the favorite CD to make themselves feel better. I don't know if there are statistics on this, but I can say, without a doubt in my mind, that music has saved a wonderful amount of lives throughout the world.

Simply hearing a song can be enough to make somebody put down the gun...

If that's not considered a "major impact" on the world, then I don't know what is.

:2 cents:

Most of the time... I don't agree with what you have to say, but this was a great post. I will rep you when I have the chance.

 

[Latterer]

Since about the Great Depression, the power of the Presidency has gradually grown more and more. First it was FDR's "New Deal," which set American economic policy in a way that Presidents previously hadn't attempted. Then it was WWII and the expansion of wartime powers for the Commander-in-Chief. Then it was the Cold War and the expansion of "Executive Privilege" to justify secrecy in the White House. And finally, we have Bush, who may be the worst abuser of executive power, but really is just inheriting a legacy that the American people have endorsed for the last 80 years. Combined with an equally disturbing expansion of judicial power in the federal courts, the public sees Congress (which is where the Constitution really invests power) as virtually impotent. The President can do what he wants as long as the Supreme Court doesn't stop him. That easily leads to Monarachial reverence for the office, even if its really completely unfounded.

The U.S. desperately needs to move power back to the legislature and back to the states. However, Obama loves manipulating people with his "messiah" public image, so I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Vehemently agree that state power needs to be reclaimed via Ninth and Tenth amendments. Believe it was the founding father Madison who said this country is an experiment of states, or something to that effect.

 

[marquis2]

Vehemently agree that state power needs to be reclaimed via Ninth and Tenth amendments. Believe it was the founding father Madison who said this country is an experiment of states, or something to that effect.

The powers of the President were modelled on those of the King whom he replaced.
The Founding Fathers said a lot of things, some of which were timeless and right, some were wrong and others were right at the time but no longer apply to a modern world.There is no chance of rolling back the power of the State although the Constitution gives pretty good protection.

 

[METAL HEAD]

thier are other artist's that sold way more albums then elvis with no arse shakeing involed in America.

 

[No_Man]

thier are other artist's that sold way more albums then elvis with no arse shakeing involed in America.

Only two...

1. The Beatles: 170 million
2. Garth Brooks: 128 million
3. Elvis Presley: 119 million

Per RIAA