Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I do no think that we should label anything, everything is what it is. If you do not like it change the channel, go listen to something else, don't download it. That is the problem we are developing as a society by placing labels on ourselves and others. Why do we feel this need to group things. Why can't we just accept everyone for how they are rather than beliefs, opinions, tastes and socio-economic status. We are who we are and who we want to be. Listen to what you like, watch what you want, do what you want to do, but you have to let others do the same. Before you define others, define yourself.
Don't follow the crowd, be unique like everyone else...........
To point out the obvious, people like labels. They like to be able to define themselves in simple terms for the most part. It's why some people choose occupations with strong stereotypes associated with them AND THEN they take on those very stereotypes. They like to feel accepted by the label they're trying to fit.
Now I understand labels can be used to divide between 'them and us', but they're just a necessary part of life. I like to write. I aspire to be a writer. Without labels, there would be no point of reference in my writing because every character fits a 'type' initially and then proceeds to expand upon the nuances of the kind of person they are.
A label can be negative, but it can also be an ideal some people attain to. And of course, nobody is ever exactly like the label they or others associate themselves with, but that doesn't discourage the labels being applied.
Labels and stereotypes are a part of life. They're completely necessary and unnecessary depending on the situation. They're also a great deal of fun to play with if you know how to skew them to mess with other people's perception of you. Just ask David Bowie.
But, aren't all labels subject to one individuals perception?
"Chicago is known as the Windy City, and Montana is called the Big Sky State, so I think that we should somehow combine the two to create the ultimate kite-flying experience. "-Mitch Hedberg
Now I understand labels can be used to divide between 'them and us', but they're just a necessary part of life. I like to write. I aspire to be a writer. Without labels, there would be no point of reference in my writing because every character fits a 'type' initially and then proceeds to expand upon the nuances of the kind of person they are.
That's about as good a point as any that could be conjured up to defend labels. Humans instinctively label things.
As for the writing, I'm not sure that character types would necessarily fall under some initial label, unless you were referring to the "protagonist/antagonist" type of labels. Characters come in an infinite amount of types, although you could really make the argument that any especially unique character is a play on the traditional character stereotypes.
But, aren't all labels subject to one individuals perception?
Yes and no. The post modernist would say yes. It's all relative. But let's face it. Certain labels are biologically inherent such as race, sexuality, height, etc.
I believe you're coming from a particularly American viewpoint (one that values personal freedom and choice above all else) whereas a great deal of the world values the societal good above all else. It is the Wrath of Khan vs. The Search for Spock conudrum if you will. That said, I prefer The Voyage Home.
As for the writing, I'm not sure that character types would necessarily fall under some initial label, unless you were referring to the "protagonist/antagonist" type of labels. Characters come in an infinite amount of types, although you could really make the argument that any especially unique character is a play on the traditional character stereotypes.
Ever read any Flannery O'Connor?
I have but not enough. I actually have a volume of her work sitting on my shelf begging for attention next to a copy of Ovid's Metamorphisis. I seem to remember she was a writer who enjoyed twisting archetypes and preconceived notions the reader might bring.
Regarding my view on character types, I'm working on a story right now that started with me wanting to use three different types to dissect one particular subject. I began with three distinct reactions I personally had regarding the subject, and then I colored the characters in shades or character types that might best fit representing those reactions. As the characters come forward more, I've rewritten them to better suit their individual characteristics while keeping in mind that they have to be interesting to keep the story moving. But in all of this, I use labels and types from what I remember and know to add specific reference points for the audience so that there is an instant recognition of someone like that they've known.
Once you establish character using labels or types, you can then do what you want with it, whether you're goal is to accomplish a point using those types or to play with that type until it is revealed to be inherently flawed, that's left up to the storyteller. But I do believe labels to be useful in my writing. I view them as a sort of concordance of every day life, a jumping off point so that I can learn why I was right or wrong to use them to begin with.
" Much more prevalent at Bonnaroo are "neo-hippies" who advocate many of the original counterculture beliefs and ethics, yet maintain roles in mainstream society (have steady jobs, go to school, own homes, etc."
i feel if i had to fit myself into a label, this would be the most appropriate.
ANother name Ive heard for these types of people are North Face Hippies. Not dirty wooks but mainstream folk who know how to party when they arent working. I guess I would consider myself beign a north face hippie but I dont relaly liek being called a hippie considering a lot of the negative connotations that go along with being a hippie.
I have but not enough. I actually have a volume of her work sitting on my shelf begging for attention next to a copy of Ovid's Metamorphisis. I seem to remember she was a writer who enjoyed twisting archetypes and preconceived notions the reader might bring.
She plays with archetypes, but not really. Her characters are something to read...they just are what they are. You should read Wise Blood. Everyone's read A Good Man is Hard to Find, that doesn't even count.
I'd like to read what you're talking about. This may be something more suited for messages, and not posts. Do let me know. Have you read Breakfast of Champions?
EDIT: just leave Ovid alone, unless you need to make a classical reference. It has nothing to do with modern prose.
But, aren't all labels subject to one individuals perception?
Yes and no. The post modernist would say yes. It's all relative. But let's face it. Certain labels are biologically inherent such as race, sexuality, height, etc.
I believe you're coming from a particularly American viewpoint (one that values personal freedom and choice above all else) whereas a great deal of the world values the societal good above all else. It is the Wrath of Khan vs. The Search for Spock conudrum if you will. That said, I prefer The Voyage Home.
Race, sexuality, height , etc. are genetic traits not labels. We as a SOCIETY have given labels, that is right, WE. ;D
"Chicago is known as the Windy City, and Montana is called the Big Sky State, so I think that we should somehow combine the two to create the ultimate kite-flying experience. "-Mitch Hedberg
Yes and no. The post modernist would say yes. It's all relative. But let's face it. Certain labels are biologically inherent such as race, sexuality, height, etc.
I believe you're coming from a particularly American viewpoint (one that values personal freedom and choice above all else) whereas a great deal of the world values the societal good above all else. It is the Wrath of Khan vs. The Search for Spock conudrum if you will. That said, I prefer The Voyage Home.
Race, sexuality, height , etc. are genetic traits not labels. We as a SOCIETY have given labels, that is right, WE. ;D
Yeah, but there are labels associated with those traits that are based off genetic truth. For example, some indigenous groups are often more effected by alcohol or fatty diets than others and are therefore labeled as being drunks or fatasses. These are of course hurtful labels, but ones born out of certain genetic truths.
It is a stereotype that gay men are more feminine than heterosexual men, but in many gay men, their hormone makeup is different than that of straight men giving them more female traits than straight males.
Or even socio-economically, it's like saying that high income families are more likely to drive luxury cars than low income families.
Now these are all stereotypes that are not absolute by are based in large part on truth. The meaning you want to read into them, that is where I agree with you. It's relative. But most labels do not come out of nowhere. And even the false ones (such as black men raping white women) are often telling of cultural problems and worth taking note of.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't be afraid of labels. I think they're important as an initial way of understanding someone and your perceptions of who that person is. Don't be afraid to be wrong about someone because you might learn something about your own hang ups and prejudices along the way.
Maybe I'll throw myself to the dogs, but my back's not to the wall Maybe I'll lay some bricks for the man, but the days just aren't that long So if I settle back and chill will I see far enough to feel the angel's dream? I thought it was the Story of the World!
I read it somewhere that homosexuality might not be a genetic trait as much as it is a hormonal one. The hypothesis was tested successfully on lab rats and was taken from the statistical analysis that found that homosexuals were likelier to be born the youngest in families with multiple male members than any other kind of family. The idea being that the hormones that determine sexual drive and preference are found in the womb and are limited in supply in some women.
There are other articles too. From what I gather, there is quite a heated debate as to whether or not homosexuality is hormonal or genetic within the scientific community as it might be medically treateable if it were hormonal.
Maybe I'll throw myself to the dogs, but my back's not to the wall Maybe I'll lay some bricks for the man, but the days just aren't that long So if I settle back and chill will I see far enough to feel the angel's dream? I thought it was the Story of the World!
Race, sexuality, height , etc. are genetic traits not labels. We as a SOCIETY have given labels, that is right, WE. ;D
Yeah, but there are labels associated with those traits that are based off genetic truth. For example, some indigenous groups are often more effected by alcohol or fatty diets than others and are therefore labeled as being drunks or fatasses. These are of course hurtful labels, but ones born out of certain genetic truths.
It is a stereotype that gay men are more feminine than heterosexual men, but in many gay men, their hormone makeup is different than that of straight men giving them more female traits than straight males.
Or even socio-economically, it's like saying that high income families are more likely to drive luxury cars than low income families.
Now these are all stereotypes that are not absolute by are based in large part on truth. The meaning you want to read into them, that is where I agree with you. It's relative. But most labels do not come out of nowhere. And even the false ones (such as black men raping white women) are often telling of cultural problems and worth taking note of.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't be afraid of labels. I think they're important as an initial way of understanding someone and your perceptions of who that person is. Don't be afraid to be wrong about someone because you might learn something about your own hang ups and prejudices along the way.
I agree, not to be afraid of labels, but just saying they are all based on perception of the particular individual using the label. sure drunks, and fatasses, but based on perception.
"Chicago is known as the Windy City, and Montana is called the Big Sky State, so I think that we should somehow combine the two to create the ultimate kite-flying experience. "-Mitch Hedberg
"Chicago is known as the Windy City, and Montana is called the Big Sky State, so I think that we should somehow combine the two to create the ultimate kite-flying experience. "-Mitch Hedberg
who cares? Labels blow. All music comes from the soul and if someone type casted me because of what i listen to I'd be pretty pissed. Even Brittney spears songs came from someone's soul (the actual song writers ).
Post by oatmealschnappz on Mar 7, 2007 0:14:39 GMT -5
Yeah, at any given moment and by any given person, we can all be labled. Our goal, as intelligent, individual and evolving people should always be to strive to contradict, negate and nullify all of this simplified, grammar-school bullsh*t! We are people NOT catagories! Allowing or embracing classifications only limits our potential! I am done with this ridiculously devisive thread!
Post by melikecheese on Mar 7, 2007 9:46:54 GMT -5
The person who started this thread did nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong with classifying something. ITS THE STEREOTYPES THAT ARE BAD. I have no shame in saying I am a hippy or a hipster, am a democrat, am a meat eater, and on and on, its the close minded stereotypes which we all hate and all don't want. That is not what this thread is about, its just weither you call yourself a hippy or a hipster or maybe something else. Lighten up everyone, everything in this world is called something. If you perfer "hippy", so be it, if you just prefer "human creature" I am all with you.
I would love to be called a Hippie. For someone to see me as free spirited and loving and a person that embraces life then who am I to judge them. Why can't we all just get along. I say throw off the steroypes that keep us from all coming together and embrace your neighbor who may be the most intersting peron that you may ever meet, be them hippie or hipster.
I just think if your going to label someone on the music they listen to then your forgetting that music really has no boundaries and half the groups that are "categorized" don't fit and the very fact that they are "categorized" into one pile turns them off of the listeners of the other. So really all these labels come from mislabeled labels in the first place! In the end it doesn't bother me enough to get mad or anything and I speak that language to communicate music-wise but I still consider labels to be made-up and bogus. Not sure if this even made sense....oh well.
it's all relative. for instance, i work in a corporate office, and while it's not too terribly stuffy, my co-workers ARE corporate professionals. to them, i'm the office hippie.
but stack me up to a real bonafide, "living the life" hippie, and i'm a corporate sell-out.
and in reality, i'm just someone living my life, doing what makes me happy, and trying to evolve as much as possible. it's really all just about being true to yourself, even if you do end up being misunderstood once in a while.
Labels aren't necessarily evil if they bring us to a deeper understanding--it's just a way to communicate. Whether you label yourself a hippie, hipster, american, human being, all of this is just a method for getting across information. Don't hate on them. Don't get stuck in them either. words words words. They're useful, but don't let them use you.
That said, I think someone made the point that hippie vs. hipster is really a question of jamband vs. indie rock, as far as bonnaroo is concerned. I can't say I'm a big fan of jam bands, but I love music and will listen to anything. The bands I'm going for, besides The Police which is a lifelong dream come true, are Wilco, Spoon, and The White Stripes: someone might apply the label "hipster" to me to give a vague, general impression, and I wouldn't mind. It's a word with limited use. Still, I expect to enjoy some of the jamband sets.
This thread made me think: jambands are known for the freedom in their music. They take the song anywhere in the moment. I loved learning about widespread panic and the idea of not playing a song more than once in every three nights. The great thing about indie rock, to me--the LABEL of "indie rock"--is that it is a genre defined by it's approach to production: a business ethic, specifically to be free from corporate labels and their influence, DIY, power to the people, and that's very much a hippie ideal right in the heart of the hipster music scene.
What he said.....
moonsky409 said:
and in reality, i'm just someone living my life, doing what makes me happy, and trying to evolve as much as possible. it's really all just about being true to yourself, even if you do end up being misunderstood once in a while.