Pretty vacant? the kids of today? running round in witches hats etc?

However vacant they might be - they cannot compete with the baby-boomers in the vacancy stakes.
I know that there are some intelligent, thinking baby boomers out there - but they don't get much of a go in the face of the massive media & financial machine aimed at baby boomers.
Much as I hate to knock "The Age" which is surely Australia's best daily newspaper - it give sme the "annoyances" when they come out with a supplement dedicated to the baby boomers - and projecting the most vacuous lifestyle possible for baby boomers.

I understand why The Age - and every other media outlet, has to do this. the baby boomers are the ones with the money and the time to spend it.

On financial "advisers", (ripoff merchants) on golf, on trips around Australia, or overseas, on luxury apartments with every mod con in them - as they supposedly "downsize", on every possible kind of leisure wear, leisure activity - because - after all - what is their role in society ? It is Leisure.
The baby boomers are out to pasture, and enjoying it - they are the consumers par excellence. They've forgotten John Lennon. At least this is the media picture of baby boomers. And, I fear - life is imitating media.

When I was a kid, fully into the Beatles/Stones/CCR etc etc, my father, who was a musician, often complained that the musicality of these people was low and compared unfavorably with the real musicians of the Sinatra/Crosby/Como era.

And here we are, the open minded baby boomers, doing exactly as our parents did -decrying the vacuous nature of the present culture as compared to the imagined halcyon days when things were "real, man". The more things change....

Ok, if you're going to compare Aguilera to the Beatles then things look grim for the current crop. But a fairer comparison is Aguilera with Little Pattie - besides, according to Eminem, Aguilera literally fellated her way to the top and that's gotta count for something in my book. Compare The Beatles/Stones with U2/Oasis. Compare Dylan to Marshall Mathers. The true giants of each era.

The music world today is just as diverse and just as talented as always. It’s a shame that the "children of the revolution" have become so staid in their thinking that they see anything different as worse.

Those were the days , my friend ... and weren't they great. We all thought that our generation were going to make the world a better place.

With macrame.

They were great years. And I agree with the author of the article - all we have left now are re-assuring brochures. There is no government in Queensland. It vanishes as soon as you have any kind of problem. We are living and working in a steamy jungle, being hunted down and devoured by public service psychopaths who are being "merit selected" because of their skills in smiling with all of their teeth, gossipping and secretly putting undated and unsigned sticky notes on the Departmental files of their fellow union members.

Hey, wasn't that the way Russia was being run back in the 1970's?

We have come so far.

http://www.badapplebullies.com/mobtheory.htm

These days we have no substance it has been overrun by US consumerism, along with Australian values, language, customs, and attitudes.

I don't know what you are saying Mr H.

Are you simply pining for your youth? I think so as today's "music" means the same to today's youth as our music did for us. It's the age, not the music, that makes that time, and fashions etc, memorable and precious as we age. Teenage years are the most exciting and involved there are. Before we are followers of Mum and Dad and after we are worker bees. Too busy and committed to simply go wild and have fun like we did when free, young and strong.

As to rock n roll being dead, don't you get out at all Mr H? Try going out and see some live music. It ain't like the TV or radio. It's still R and R. Live, the best of all.

Beautiful piece of writing Mr Buncle. Very clever, very funny and hugely enjoyable.

Odd though, that pretty much like the toothbrush, the message is a familiar argument wrapped in a labyrinthine linguistic package.

So it's a toothbrush, so entertainment these days is depthless, big deal. If the packaging is as impressive as Mr Buncle's wording I can understand why it sells.

I'm not sure now what is supposed to be so wonderful about the baby boomers.

They disconnected themselves from everything that had gone before without discrimination and set themselves up as "the new improved way".

Suddenly it was completely acceptable to become a work shy, fornicating drug addict with no topic of conversation beyond, "the systems f..cked man!".

And it went on too long and people believed their own BS for too long.

A destroyed generation and a worthless one. Soon to stuffed screaming and yelling into the waste compactor of history.

Young people, young people, however, are they not under the protection and guidance of the older generations?

So who let the garden run rank and wild?

Is it inaccurate to say the tomfoolery of the baby boomer's was legitimatized and empowered by malignant forces seeking an end to human progress and civilization?

Maybe some could argue that they just wanted to make a profit and rest was collateral damage.

Sounds like the British empire to me.

Dealing with the mob,
I took the time to read your story and firmly agree that you were treated appallingly by your colleagues and your union.
I, myself was treated in a similar way some years ago in a job where it was compulsory to join the union and when the going got tough they bailed on me.
Having said that, perhaps after all these years it might be best to get on with your life and let good old-fashioned Kharma deal with those bad apples.
Trust me,antagonism can be counter productive.

ChristinaMac, RobbyH,

Your responses indicate that you may have misinterpreted the article. It was in no way a pro-boomer rant; as stated, I hold them in contempt for so shamelessly selling out as they did. Further, I suggest that the babyboomer masses had the same herd mentality in their youth as the youth today. There is no difference between the generations in this.

My main point is that it so happened in the 60s/70s - call it a happy accident of time and place - that the music icons of the time were producing work of real substance. Who could claim this is so today? Today’s monstrously powerful marketing has had the effect of dumbing down the music.

Those are my central points here, and are not intended as a putdown of today's kids. Indeed, I suspect that the youth who break from the herd and look past the packaging probably share views similar to those expressed in the article. The views I'm expressing here are not a function of age; nor am I speaking on behalf of the baby boomer generation.

mhaze,

Where is the evidence that the attitudes expressed in the article are parallel to your father's? I would say, if anything, that the standard of musicianship today is generally technically superior to that of the rock musos of the 60s - and indeed, that is part of the problem! Everything is so slickly presented today, the session musos backing the big names are superb, the productions shine like diamonds...oh, the packaging is better than ever before! But what is at its heart? Too often, no heart!

The much-needed amphetamine shot in the arm punk delivered to the bloated, stadium-dwelling, slick-lickin' creature rocknroll had become by the mid-late 70s is going to come from where, today?

U2? Oasis? Gimme a break! Both are already has-beens.

Those artists today who really do have something to say rarely get the massive promotion they need to deliver to the masses unless they fit the packaging mould, which is all about appearance and not much about art. Tragic.

PS: Who's Mr H?

chainsmoker,

First, congrats on your nick. I love a contrarian.

Well, what can I say to your charges? The message is the message, and if that leaves you empty, call me facile. Strewth, whaddayawant in a few hundred words, anyway - "Of Grammatology"?

Jellyback,

Who's claiming that the babyboomers are "so wonderful"? Not me! They are the most selfish, materialistic, indulgent generation in history and I hold them in contempt for that, and for selling out as they have. If you're reading me as some sort of babyboomer apologist, read again. I disown my generation.

That said, your depiction of the typical 60s/70s boomer as a "work shy, fornicating drug addict with no topic of conversation beyond, 'the systems f..cked man!' " is laughable. Even as a most simplistic stereotype, it doesn't get past rough cartoon caricature! Suggest you educate yourself a little beyond viewing "Woodstock the Movie" before you leap in with any more declarations like that.

Re your comment: "Young people, however, are they not under the protection and guidance of the older generations? So who let the garden run rank and wild?"

No argument from me on that. The Boomers are the worst parents in history (and obviously, I'm generalising). Dr Spock has a lot to answer for.

Re your comment: "Is it inaccurate to say the tomfoolery of the baby boomer's was legitimatized and empowered by malignant forces seeking an end to human progress and civilization?"

Um, yes, just a little. In fact, aren't you getting a tad hysterical there?

Hey, Ross,
I understand you are not identifying with your generation, but I also understand mhasa and RobbyH and the 'yer father' imputation.

O.k., R&R was vital and raw and rough back in the day - but lyrics like "I wanna hold your hand", "She loves you, yeah, yeah yeah" or the oft-quoted "Yummy, yummy yummy.."etc. etc. weren't too substantive either. It could be argued that the packaging of everything from Beatle stockings to Beatle lamps was also slick in the standards of the day.

The sixties and the seventies was also the era of Marley, Hendrix, Crosby,Still, Nash (and Young), Moody Blues, Deep Purple, Joe Cocker, Joplin, Guthrie - anathema to R&R and derisive of the "bubble-gummers" and "teeny-boppers" who got sucked in by all the materialism and hype.

It was also the era of The Carpenters, The Patridge Family and, godelpus, The Singing bloody Nuns.

So to-day the equivalents of the bubblegummers or boppers (labels which refer more to a mindset than age-group) go equally overboard for the plastic-boobed, vacant and airheaded up-dated versions? Granted.

But "where's the substance"?

I reckon it's alive and vital and its everywhere. Download the lyrics of The Streets, listen to Little Birdie, go see Cat Empire or Hilltop Hoods or Sarita, lap up Big Day Out, tune in to Dykes on Mikes...- its involved and substantive and all around us.

Mainstream is just that - whether we're talking Beatles, Abba, Acka Dakka, Back Street Boyz or Tupac.

Bubblegum and fairyfloss - whether expressed as as a formulaic Strauss waltze, a syncopated foxtrot, a re-mixed doof-doof or a Christina A. - will always appeal to the senses.

But music that appeals to the soul and the mind as well will always be a vital part of every generation.

Jellyback---- "Sounds like the British Empire to me"

Sounds like human nature to me. The British just had the mitlitary muscle to make it go their way. All the others in the world would have done the same thing if they had had the same power to dominate that the British had. And if they eventually wrest that power from the West they will do exactly the same thing. Just watch them.

A few years ago TISM released a song about popular music called Garbage moaning that kids were recycling "their parents' adolescent angst". One verse went:

"Paul McCartney once said the Sex Pistols
Were another band playin' Chuck Berry;
At the time I thought, "You boring old w----r", (sorry the wretched profanity filter won't let me post the real word)
Now I think it's down right scary."

Pop has always fed on itself. Glen Matlock maintains that the Pretty Vacant guitar riff was inspired by S.O.S, by ABBA. Rock music owes a huge debt to Robert Johnson, who's been dead for nearly 70 years. Elvis took black music and made it (somewhat) acceptable for white audiences. Everyone steals ideas. The Byrds covered Mr Tambourine Man, using Beatles-style harmonies and bassline (and a 12-string Rickenbacker, just like the Beatles).

Marketing and management have always been an integral to rock music. It's doubtful that Elvis would have succeeded without Colonel Tom Parker. In The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle Malcom McLaren tried to claim all credit for the success of the Sex Pistols because of his brilliant "marketing".

Most popular music is rubbish, always has been, always will be. For every Dylan or Robert Johnson, there are a thousand Kenny Gs, Mili Vanillis or Celine Dions. We only hear the 1% of good stuff from the 60s, not the 99% dross. Listening through the haze of nostalgia also helps.

There are always mavericks, musicians who command a big enough audience that they can ignore the A&R men and record what they like. People like Dylan, Neil Young, kd lang, Brian Eno. Laurie Anderson, Lou Reed and our very own Nick Cave and Ed Kuepper to name just a few. Do yourself a favour and give some of them a listen. If you're an adult, you need to listen to adult music. Leave the stage-diving to the kids, who think they've invented something new.

Or, in the immortal words of Johnny Rotten:

"Don't ask us to attend 'cos we're not all there.
I don't pretend 'cos I don't care"

Can I walk beside you?
I have come here to lose the smog,
And I feel to be a cog in something turning.

Well, maybe it's just the time of year
Or maybe it's the time of man,
And I dont know who I am,
But you know - life is for learning.

By the time we got to Woodstock
We were half a million strong
And everywhere there was song and celebration.

And I dreamed I saw the bombers
Riding shotgun in the sky,
And they were turning into butterflies
Above our nation.

We are stardust (billion year old carbon),
We are golden (caught in the devil's bargain),
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden.

----

I recalled the above from memory, although it was written a while ago. I seem to remember a million words from a thousand songs.

And it's sad that my dad missed out on that, but it's not yet too late for my kids and grandkids to appreciate it.

- nor you either.

no thanks

What was that you said about antagonism, Goddess?

Dealing With the Mob
http://www.badapplebullies.com/mobtheory.htm

Chris,
Must you continuously interject with common sense and logic, are you unaware it is now the 21st century and these once important themes are important no more.

I guess we are not young enough to know it all anymore.

Dealing with the mob,
What I meant by antagonism is that the people who did those despicable things to you could see your posting the facts as
exposing them for what they are.
Liars and cheats will eventually get what is coming to them.
You need to move on and rise above these idiots and let the healing begin.
You sound like too good a person to keep suffering.
Get happy again and show them that you won in the end.

A note to Goddess and Dealing With The Mob:

On the "Write New Post" page, which you see each time you write a new post, it clearly states, among other things, that posters are to "observe all Forum Rules".

Please note Forum Rule #1, which states: Keep responses on topic.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Mr Buncle's article, and was keen to read the responses it elicited. I've been a bit surprised that no one seems to have taken up any of the main points of the article. It is clear that the writer is not an apologist for the Baby Boomer generation. Why is everyone seeing the article as some sort of nostalgic pining for the music of the 60s? It seems to me that the main focus is on marketing today and the changes it has wrought.

I was a pre-teen at the time the Beatles exploded on to the music scene in the UK. I can tell you, there was precious little merchandising and marketing in contrast to the situation these days. I saw the Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Gerry and the Pacemakers, and many more British bands on their first tours of the US. There were no fancy sets, no light shows, no coloured nitrogen smoke, no theatrical backdrops. In fact, the amplification was barely adequate.

My major gripe though is with those posters who seek to hijack a thread by bringing up issues which are completely off topic. Dealing With The Mob was the first to do this with his post, and, unfortunately, Goddess has fallen into his trap.

I suggest, DWTM, that you submit your own article for publication, then those who are interested in what you have to say can respond to your article. Bet you won't like it if someone then hijacks YOUR article, will you?

Generation X, Generation Y, call it what you like.

What really counts is the torch that is passed on from one generation to another. If the student isn't wiser and better than her/his teacher, then the teacher was no good in the first place. If the next generation isn't wiser than the previous one, then what the hell are we doing here?

Look - all isn't lost. Check out this young feller (1hr 47min video):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8545414779301935419&hl=en

Pay attention. Concentrate.

I'll be asking questions later....

(PS. Play it twice, you mouldy oldies)

Garden Gnome.

My blog was made in response to the article writer's observation that -

"the 60s and early 70s was a time of social and cultural upheaval - a revolution, ... the music ... erupted spontaneously out of a confluence of circumstances originating in the 50s, and gathering the momentum of a wildfire swept through the 60s, feeding off itself like a firestorm.

... It was certainly not the product of a precisely orchestrated marketing campaign."

because I presumed that the writer had in mind the "precisely orchestrated marketing campaign" that is currently being waged on On Line Opinion, the Courier-Mail and many other Australian blogs.

The Labor party seem to have organised an army of bloggers to "spin" every blogging opportunity into an opportunity to "put down" anybody who is not sympathetic to their cause.

And I am fed up with the unions for using members' money to fund anti-Howard advertising rather than using members' money to help members.

Because so much union money is being directed to Labor party advertising, union members are very vulnerable to workplace abuse at the moment.

And this has nothing to do with workchoices, this has been "going on" for years.

It is a choice that has been made for members by their unions.

My blog was directly relevant to the article.

I agree with garden Gnome that Godess's attempts to silence me were "off topic" and I encourage her, Garden Gnome and all other Labor party supporters to participate in the blog to discuss Teacher Bullying in Queensland Schools that I have provided (and personally funded) -

http://teacherbullyingqueensland.typepad.com/

JohnJ,

Of course pop has always fed on itself - all art is allusive! So? What's that got to do with anything in the article?

Ta for the basic rock history lesson, but I'm past the beginner's unit. As for "doing myself a favour" re “Dylan, Neil Young, kd lang, Brian Eno, Laurie Anderson, Lou Reed, Nick Cave and Ed Kuepper”…oh, please! I’ve been an avid fan of rock for 35+ years, from the 60s to now. I really don't need your “adult music” guidance.

Re your Johnny Rotten quotes: I know more than a little about Mr Rotten. I was a founder member of one of the first punk bands in Australia. I mention that not in boast, but because I am a little taken aback that you and others appear to be assuming that I am some old hippie on a nostalgia kick who sits around with a bong listening to the Grateful Dead. I’m not, and never was! And I don’t publish articles without being reasonably informed about my topics!

There appears to be a general assumption that I need educating about today’s quality rock/pop music.

I am aware, folks, that discussion on Beck’s influence does not necessarily refer to the decline in Leyton Hewitt’s WTA rankings. I understand that the Arctic Monkeys are not necessarily primates featured on the Discovery channel.

Perhaps a list of the CDs that I have played recently and have yet to put away might be instructive: Interpol, Ron Sexsmith, Love, The Stooges, Lucinda Williams, Missy Higgins, Portishead, Gomez, Franz Ferdinand, Elliott Smith, Television, Nick Drake, Tim Hardin, The Velvet Underground, Tom Waits, The Homicides and Eskimo Joe.

I am well aware that there is quality around today outside the mainstream pap. Awright?

As to your point about marketing and management always being around…well, yes. But the article is looking at DIFFERENCES between today and the more naïve 60s/70s. I find it difficult to take seriously those who deny that there are any.

DWTM, clearly your blog has no relevance to the article. I endorse GardenGnome's comments. Pls don't spam the thread.

Ross Bunkle,

I was not spamming.

Just because I did not parrot your own ideas back to you exactly, it does not mean that I was spamming.

You said -

... There was a tremendous energy during that period, a sense that the times really were a-changin’, that we were heading somewhere as a united force, and though we knew not where, we were in the driving seat.

... the 60s and early 70s was a time of social and cultural upheaval - a revolution, no less. ... It erupted spontaneously out of a confluence of circumstances originating in the 50s, and gathering the momentum of a wildfire swept through the 60s, feeding off itself like a firestorm.

It was certainly not the product of a precisely orchestrated marketing campaign. ...

... Marketing, packaging, branding is everything. Where is the substance? ...

Can't you see the relevance of your own words to the political situation today?

Don't you remember the expection we had that the world was going to be a better place?

Can't you see how democracy has been degraded into an advertising campaign?

Please don't dismiss my post as spam.

My post is 100% relevant to the ideas expressed in your article, even if you struggle to understand the point that I am making.

Twenty five years ago they spoke out and they broke out
Of depression and oppression and together they toked
And they folked out with guitars around a bon fire
Just singin' and clappin' man what the hell happened
Some were spell bound some were hell bound
Some they fell down and some got back up and
Fought back 'gainst the melt down
And their kids are hippie chicks and hypocrites
Because fashion is smashin' the true meaning of it

(Smashmouth)

Kind of says it all. And I'm a hypocrite because I fell for it too.

- until now. Despite everything, it's late - but not TOO late.

DWTM,

Apologies – I didn’t understand your point as expressed earlier. I do now, and agree. I expressed something similar in my previous Onlineopinion article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5999

Romany,

I don’t understand your claim that Hendrix, Purple, Joplin etc were “anathema to rocknroll” – most rock historians would place them among the rocknroll icons of the time!

I find your grouping of The Carpenters, Partridge Family and Singing Nun into one category bizarre – never mind.

Not correct that only the teenies were “sucked in by all the materialism and hype” of the time (the 60s movement rejected materialism BTW, though this creed was sold out by the mid-70s). One of the main points of my article is that rocknroll was central to a massive cultural movement (which went way beyond mere hype) in the 60s/70s that involved an enormous sector of the population, from teens to mid-30s and older - plainly not the case today.

I know all those contemporary bands you mention; my point is that their impact on the masses is minimal today, whereas during the 60s/early 70s a lot of quality product had a massive audience among a demographic with a 20 year+ range (eg: The Who, Kinks, Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Doors, Zombies, Zeppelin etc – and that’s a BIG etc!).

Thus, I don’t agree with the poster who contended that in all eras 99% of mainstream popular music is crap. This really was not the case in the 60s/early 70s. Indeed, many young bands today acknowledge this era as the golden age of rock that it truly was. That is not to deny that there is great stuff around today – it’s just not celebrated en masse as it once was.

I’ll leave you with a stat that I think speaks volumes. The fastest-selling British act since The Beatles is The Spice Girls. “Wannabe” remained at Number 1 on the charts for 7 weeks – surely a classic demonstration of packaging over substance…and global marketing has come a long way since the Spice Girls! You can only shudder at the prospect of what awaits in the future…

Ah Ross. Nice to see you haven't lost the fire in the belly. Though it's more like Grumpy Old Men than Angry Young Punks...

I certainly agree that music marketing has exploded in the last couple of decades, but everywhere I look, I'm inundated with marketing and PR spin. My email inbox is filled with spam, my letterbox overflows with junk mail and I can't pick up the phone without someone from India informing me of an exciting new phone plan.

I arrived in Sydney from the country in the late 1970s, as a fan of prog rock and heavy metal but I quickly found Sydney's punk and post-punk movement. The music I saw actually meant something to me and I remember those gigs with great nostalgia. I don't see that kind of interest in live music among the young people I know and I don't believe that has much to do with marketing. I find they're more interested in playing computer games, talking on their mobiles or surfing the web. None of this was available in my youth.

The music industry is on the point of collapse, CD sales have fallen by 20% this year alone http://www.downhillbattle.org/?p=596 As you pointed out, this is not due to a lack of decent music, but it does look like the big labels are about to crash and burn. I think we're on the verge of the biggest shake-up the music industry has ever seen. What emerges from the wreckage will be (I hope) a host of small players creating some great new music.

As for "do yourself a favour", well I saw that as an ironic homage to a great Australian icon. No offence meant. As for everyone misinterpreting your article, it seems there are a couple of possible explanations:
(a) All the posters are idiots
(b) The posters are only interested in their own obsessions
(c) Nobody cares
(d) Your argument wasn't sufficiently clear

Plenty of people have called me an idiot over the years, so (a) is a possibility. If I were you, though, I'd be looking at (d).

Just saw your post, Ross, which I can't leave unanswered. Spice Girls at No. 1 for 7 weeks? Perhaps you've forgotten that in 1976, Fernando by ABBA was at No. 1 (when that really meant something) for 14 interminable weeks.

Can you hear the drums Fernando?

Guys, you can make a difference.
Instead of sitting around bitching......do something.

Ross, I think we are both using the actual term "rock and roll" differently. In my lexicon R&R is only one component of a very diverse collection of styles comprising popular music - and perhaps as you started off with the early Beatles stuff I guess I misread you. After all, even Lennon and Harrison moved away from that style later on.

And c'mon - how many Hendrix, Cocker etc. fans were into the simple lead guitar, bass back-beat type (a la Gerry and the Pacemakers?)of music that got people up on the dancefloor?

The reason I categorised the others (Carpenters et al)together therefore might be a little clearer: - that was also popular music and sold millions (hell, in China its STILL selling)and attracted hype, but it also 'ain't Rock n Roll. And it certainly wasn't great or substantive.

So, sorry, yeah, I guess I am also guilty of misreading what you said as a kinda Pythonesque lookback to other times. But I still am not sure I get your point? Yes, undoubtedly there's more marketing and "extravaganzas". But smoke and mirrors don't turn good music into bad and people who respect music are still not fooled. Those people are in the minority now as they were then and a lot of crappy stuff came out then as it does now. And what the hey, all the fx make going to see a mediocre group a much better experience now than it was then, I guess. While serious musos and their fans don't go for all that stuff anyway.

I think I subscribe to the "tout ca change, tout c'est le meme.." school of thought rather than agreeing fully with you.

Johnj - Ross explained his ideas perfectly clearly, I just thought the toothbrush in the bubble-wrap was Mr Rudd.

There might just be something in what you say about obsession - although I would prefer to describe it as "applying new ideas to previous experience".

Goddess - you don't like Chris's song, you want the guys to stop sitting around and do something, and you want me to stop what I am doing.

Grump, grump, grumpy Goddess.

Pretty vacaunt. John Lydon and the Sex Pistols. Plenty of substance in old-school punk. Substance being kick-up-the-arse music; smack in the mouth words. Loud, hard and fast but most importantly anti-anti-anti-anti beige cardigans, snobbish nose tilters and exploitive bastards.

Spellcheck? Why?

Substance:

SEX PISTOLS LYRICS

"Pretty Vacant"

There's no point in asking you'll get no reply
Oh just remember I don't decide
I got no reason it's too all much
You'll always find us out to lunch

Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
A vacant

Don't ask us to attend 'cos we're not all there
Oh don't pretend 'cos I don't care
I don't believe illusions 'cos too much is real
So stop you're cheap comment 'cos we know what we feel

Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty we're vacant
Ah but now and we don't care

There's no point in asking you'll get no reply
Oh just remember a don't decide
I got no reason it's too all much
You'll always find me out to lunch
We're out on lunch

Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty ah
But now and we don't care

We're pretty
A pretty vacant
We're pretty
A pretty vacant
We're pretty
A pretty vacant
We're pretty
A pretty vacant

And we don't care

END

What happened to the rest of my last post? Nothing offensive there. The song that the author lifted his heading from is pronounced with a strong "u" emphasis in vacant. That's how Johnny Rotten pronounced it. What's the problem

There is substance out there you just have to look. A youngster directed me to this clip below. While Slayer have been around for ever with Reign In Blood being their most known work: who has heard of them? Why would the powers that be play their work? It might just touch something inside - give their empathy a nudge or in the case of this particular video below stir their desire to understand the darkness that young boys and girls face in far off places while our media play meaningless pap.

Information is not just news and opinion but stuff that develops insight. War veterans who've seen action it is not too graphic but take it easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPy1ZHpJdZ8