Country rock
band Confederate Railroad’s scheduled appearance at the DuQuoin State Fair is
cancelled by Illinois Governor Pritzker’s office because of the band’s name and
its depiction of the confederate flag. Link
to news article and video of Pritzker statements:
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/illinois-politics-take-center-stage-amid-state-fair-music-controversy/article_00a2dafe-a336-11e9-8cb4-e312392d8e5c.html?fbclid=IwAR3aBFVMzMGKGGBCbuKHXLvk8KBugxQ7t7Yt8EZjAhoCqs2RkakBmFvxYHk#new_tab
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/illinois-politics-take-center-stage-amid-state-fair-music-controversy/article_00a2dafe-a336-11e9-8cb4-e312392d8e5c.html?fbclid=IwAR3aBFVMzMGKGGBCbuKHXLvk8KBugxQ7t7Yt8EZjAhoCqs2RkakBmFvxYHk#new_tab
The really
important issue here is government censorship of the arts. And in this case,
despite the hyperbole from both sides, the Pritzker Administration has engaged
in a selective, discriminatory censorship.
Here the
censorship results from a band’s name and branding choices. Their name and logo
on a circular emblem surrounds a locomotive flying a pair of tiny Confederate
flags.
Confederate
Railroad logo
Whether one
approves or not, unlike the terms “Nazi” or “KKK,” the term “Confederate,” and
even the Confederate flag itself do not (yet) engender a broad, universal
condemnation. They are still considered by many as symbols of southern heritage
and history, the negative connotations of associated slavery notwithstanding.
The
counter-example submitted against the cancellation of Confederate Railroad is
the booking of the rapper Snoop Dogg at the main state fair, with his album cover
depicting him standing over the body of President Trump covered by an American
flag in a morgue.
Snoop
Dogg album cover
Despite how
offensive this imagery might be for many people, the governor however, argues
in the link above that it is just an example of political satire. In no way, he claims, does it remotely
compare to the transgression committed by Confederate Railroad’s name and logo through its
referencing the “treasonous” Confederacy of southern states 150 plus years ago,
its support of slavery, the ensuing
civil war, and ultimately, the assassination of Illinois’ native son, President
Abraham Lincoln.
The political
satire claim concerning Snoop Dogg’s imagery, however, neglects the overall
content of his music. If the focus shifts to content, certainly many, many
people are deeply offended by the misogyny, the obscenities, the highly
sexualized lyrics, the calls to attack police, and so on, that are all part and
parcel of so much rap and hip-hop music as exemplified by Snoop Dogg.
In contrast,
the content of the Confederate Railroad’s music appears to have been immaterial
to their cancellation – it generally appears on par for the country-music
genre, with the typical topics and themes that one might expect from this type
of music. When content is addressed, the governor’s argument appears to
diminish considerably.
All this
back-and-forth argument aside, in art or music today there is little regarding
names or content or look or actions that SOMEBODY isn’t going to find something
offensive about. If government’s main concern is not using state resources as
representatives of a whole population to sponsor content that offends some of
its people in some way, then it should totally relinquish all of the programs where
this might happen and give it up to private enterprise.
It would seem then, as long as government is involved in these types of programs, the best course of action for democratic governments would be to allow people themselves to decide whether something meets their approval, or is determined to be so offensive that is then rejected. This democratic choice is done through the market, where people “vote” through their pocketbooks.
Now it could be argued that in the process of choosing which bands to play, “censorship” of a sort is taking place as well. But selecting performers is a different kind of act than the official banning of a performer after the selection process has occurred, based on some moralistic viewpoint or a subjective distaste.
It would seem then, as long as government is involved in these types of programs, the best course of action for democratic governments would be to allow people themselves to decide whether something meets their approval, or is determined to be so offensive that is then rejected. This democratic choice is done through the market, where people “vote” through their pocketbooks.
Now it could be argued that in the process of choosing which bands to play, “censorship” of a sort is taking place as well. But selecting performers is a different kind of act than the official banning of a performer after the selection process has occurred, based on some moralistic viewpoint or a subjective distaste.
Making smart
business decisions, performers are booked for fairs and similar events based on
who are going to have the most appeal for the area’s cultural mix and generate
the most receipts. Certainly the type of bookings that would work in southern
Illinois might not fly in Chicago, and vice versa.
Subsequently,
a moralistic viewpoint or subjective taste might be part of the selection
process, but a host of other factors also come into play as well, based on the
anticipated needs and circumstances of the venue and the potential audience,
which performers are available for the event date, how much they charge in fees,
etc.
In banning
or cancelling a scheduled performance, though, in the absence of any other
mitigating factors, true censorship occurs because an authoritative entity is
arbitrarily deciding what is best for the general public’s artistic consumption
after the fact. A decision like this deprives the public of
the aesthetic experience which they have anticipated and planned for.
In short, their inalienable right to “the
pursuit of happiness” is being denied them as citizens of a free society. And,
especially when the censorship is applied to one particular instance and not
others that can also similarly generate great offense or even incite hate, it
becomes highly discriminatory as in the case here.
When censorship is not in play, if people in a particular area do find a particular band offensive in some way, they can “vote” with their money in hand and not attend. If you don’t like Confederate Railroad because of their name, don’t pay to see their concert. If you are offended by Snoop Dog’s album cover, his message and lyrics, don’t go. And, in attending a fair with its multitude of activities, no one is forced to even listen to a performance.
When censorship is not in play, if people in a particular area do find a particular band offensive in some way, they can “vote” with their money in hand and not attend. If you don’t like Confederate Railroad because of their name, don’t pay to see their concert. If you are offended by Snoop Dog’s album cover, his message and lyrics, don’t go. And, in attending a fair with its multitude of activities, no one is forced to even listen to a performance.
Censorship
in any form is a dangerous, slippery slope. Once it starts, it sets a precedent
to extend it in all directions and apply it to anything that people in
authority and power don’t like.
SOCIAL MEDIA COMMENTARY, PART I
Recently, some of my Facebook friends began a thread expressing their consternation, if not revulsion, at the extent of the hateful and poisonous discourse consuming social media. Admittedly, it’s not just social media that’s fallen to this low – all of media and regrettably, conversation of any kind, has degenerated into an “incivility which dominates all public discourse.” [1]
Recently, some of my Facebook friends began a thread expressing their consternation, if not revulsion, at the extent of the hateful and poisonous discourse consuming social media. Admittedly, it’s not just social media that’s fallen to this low – all of media and regrettably, conversation of any kind, has degenerated into an “incivility which dominates all public discourse.” [1]
And the rancor isn’t confined to politics – it seems that
any topic whatsoever is liable to generate some sneering negative comment.
For many people, the situation has bubbled over into a
growing realization that at some point along the line, if we are to continue to
call ourselves civilized in the original sense of the word (that is, being civil
towards one another), we’ve got to start exercising some restraint.
 |
| Recent Facebook meme calling for a return to civility |
When looking over the wreckage of normal relationships –
“normal” relationships, that is, whatever that term implies in the new virtual
worlds of social media – people are wondering if the arguments, the
hostility, the unresolved back-and-forth sniping, and ultimately the
un-friending, is worth it.
I think people are not only ashamed of themselves, they are
also getting frightened at what they see themselves turning into.
(By no means do I exclude myself from such behavior. Like many others, it is only in half-jest that I regard my ripostes as the epitome of derisive and sarcastic wit, indicative of a brilliance far superior to the dunderheads who posted the meme or post I attack with such savagery. Ha.)
(By no means do I exclude myself from such behavior. Like many others, it is only in half-jest that I regard my ripostes as the epitome of derisive and sarcastic wit, indicative of a brilliance far superior to the dunderheads who posted the meme or post I attack with such savagery. Ha.)
One of the most fundamental questions I see arising
here, is that deep down inside, have we always been this way, i.e., mean as
hell, with social media simply the catalyst that has now brought it to the fore?
Or, is social media, through its machinations and its
carrot-and-stick prods and incentives to respond to this and like that, somehow
bringing out the worst in us – a “worst” that we indeed are capable of, but which is
not intrinsically a part of our better nature. (A better nature, moreover, we instinctively realize what truly makes us human in distinction from the rest of the animal world.)
Early in 2016, (See "Trump and the politics of new media" post on this site) I predicted a Trump electoral victory solely
on the basis of his mastering the core foundations of social media activity.
Trump’s bombastic tweets show this mastery, and reveal social media’s ability
to bypass normal discursive practice and immediately tap into primal instincts
and their communication channels through memes and over-heated rhetoric.
Social media relies on the “boom!” The meme’s combination of
text and imagery has an instantaneous message that bypasses the frontal lobe,
so to speak. The 140-character limit on tweets forces them to be pithy, and
directly to the point. Facebook’s “like” system provides an affective reinforcement of one’s thoughts.
Like the drug addict who needs an increasing amount of drug to get a satisfying
fix, social media users have to find additional ways to amplify their voices in
order to generate more and more affective response.
Typing in caps doesn’t work, even though it’s perceived as “shouting” in virtual reality – that’s why lower case was developed centuries ago, when printers realized that all upper case tended to be unreadable as individual words on a page disappeared into a blur of uniformity. Boldface is not part of the Facebook font, and only very recently has Facebook given users the option of a colored background for personal commentary.
Typing in caps doesn’t work, even though it’s perceived as “shouting” in virtual reality – that’s why lower case was developed centuries ago, when printers realized that all upper case tended to be unreadable as individual words on a page disappeared into a blur of uniformity. Boldface is not part of the Facebook font, and only very recently has Facebook given users the option of a colored background for personal commentary.
So what’s left for the social media user to get noticed? Hyperbole
is one option – its exaggerations are deliberately intended to draw attention
to the issue at hand. Heightened emotional states – especially anger, implying and generating such anger through sarcasm, snarkiness and sniping – is an another attention-getter, but then fosters
a counter-reaction of anger in response. As a result, the memes and the
rhetoric get racheted up.
And what’s worse, as people engage in this type of
communication, with time and usage we become accustomed to it. An example of
this is the “f-bomb,” once only used in the coarsest circles in my parents’ time,
but which now has become a meaningless, commonplace adjective in this one. Make no
mistake, when culture corrodes, so do the niceties and politeness that once
defined it.
Humorous meme illustrating both the incivility of discourse and the corrosion of culture.
Humorous meme illustrating both the incivility of discourse and the corrosion of culture.
The old cautionary adage “you are what you think” is more
true than we are prepared to admit sometimes. People do mentally reinforce what
they repeat to themselves into believability. In this way, fake news becomes
“true” news. How many times have I advised friends that a certain meme being
circulated was false, only to hear the response, “Well, if it isn’t true, it could
be.”
So, if a meme suggests that Obama had been planning a coup d’etat to declare himself president for life, or Trump is putting a harem together in the Lincoln Bedroom, even though false in fact, as long as these actions (according to their respective opponents) are in the realm of possibilities at all, the memes have credence.
To be sure, politics and religion have never been neutral subjects for discussion. Even in the days before social media, many families and friendships did not weather the storms these topics are capable of producing. But for the most part, in face-to-face relationships, people learned that for the good of a civil society as a whole, it was best to put these kind of discussions on the back burner on a low setting, if not to avoid them altogether. Political campaign season notwithstanding, politics and religion used to be one’s own private affair, and even if disagreed with, at least respected.
So, if a meme suggests that Obama had been planning a coup d’etat to declare himself president for life, or Trump is putting a harem together in the Lincoln Bedroom, even though false in fact, as long as these actions (according to their respective opponents) are in the realm of possibilities at all, the memes have credence.
To be sure, politics and religion have never been neutral subjects for discussion. Even in the days before social media, many families and friendships did not weather the storms these topics are capable of producing. But for the most part, in face-to-face relationships, people learned that for the good of a civil society as a whole, it was best to put these kind of discussions on the back burner on a low setting, if not to avoid them altogether. Political campaign season notwithstanding, politics and religion used to be one’s own private affair, and even if disagreed with, at least respected.
So, yes, we can point to social media (and media as a whole
through its feedback loop of acrimony) in bearing much of the blame here for instigating
the caustic atmosphere we have seen gradually erupt into a divisiveness almost
unparalleled in American history.
At the same time, however, we must acknowledge that a strident
advocacy of causes that have the potential to affect other people’s lives in a
significant fashion is necessarily going to generate strident opposition. In
this sense, social media is only reflecting what is happening in the current
social, cultural, and political scenes. (I will explore this further in Part II
of this essay.)
In analyzing how social media works, asynchronous textual
communication has its analog in face-to-face communication, but it is not a
facsimile thereof. The rectangular screen of the computer or mobile device
mediates the communication process, its virtual world flattening out
relationships into the pixels of the screen itself.
Behind these screen-walls of silence and invisibility, people’s masks of restraint fall off. Free reign is then given to unleashing those suppressed feelings or emotions that people usually adroitly control – impulses of confrontation and hostility incited by the barbarous self that is not a part of everyday existence for most people (or at least, what most people like to avoid in their everyday existence!)
When Western author Louis L’Amour stated that “civilization is a thin veneer,” (one of my favorite quotes I often cite) he was referencing the forces of barbarianism that lie just beneath the surface of susceptible people for whom self-restraint is a weak force. Hobbes, too, subscribed to this view, in his belief that in the absence of strong government, a rapacious anarchy would necessarily result.
But government is only part of the order that civilization entails. Civilization, and the civil behavior that constitutes it, is a more natural and preferable human instinct than barbarianism, simply because barbarianism is so destructive. Humans innately recognize it as such and are repelled by it.
Behind these screen-walls of silence and invisibility, people’s masks of restraint fall off. Free reign is then given to unleashing those suppressed feelings or emotions that people usually adroitly control – impulses of confrontation and hostility incited by the barbarous self that is not a part of everyday existence for most people (or at least, what most people like to avoid in their everyday existence!)
When Western author Louis L’Amour stated that “civilization is a thin veneer,” (one of my favorite quotes I often cite) he was referencing the forces of barbarianism that lie just beneath the surface of susceptible people for whom self-restraint is a weak force. Hobbes, too, subscribed to this view, in his belief that in the absence of strong government, a rapacious anarchy would necessarily result.
But government is only part of the order that civilization entails. Civilization, and the civil behavior that constitutes it, is a more natural and preferable human instinct than barbarianism, simply because barbarianism is so destructive. Humans innately recognize it as such and are repelled by it.
Just the fact that we see people starting to pull back,
instinctively aware that something is going awry here, shows us that being
civil – whether in person or online - is
a preferred trait over incivility. Consequently, to avoid going down this dangerous
road with any number of equally catastrophic outcomes, “Think before you post,”
would be a good first-step guideline for social media commentary.
Now, after this lengthy diatribe, will I be able to heed my own advice, short of completely disengaging from social media? As an educator with a background in philosophy, I feel a responsibility to instill and promote critical thinking.
So the answer is, probably not, if an issue crops up that I feel is completely lacking in critical thought. The citizen of a democratic civil society has multiple responsibilities: promoting civil discourse is one, but pushing back against the always-present mob mentality is one equally as important.
Now, after this lengthy diatribe, will I be able to heed my own advice, short of completely disengaging from social media? As an educator with a background in philosophy, I feel a responsibility to instill and promote critical thinking.
So the answer is, probably not, if an issue crops up that I feel is completely lacking in critical thought. The citizen of a democratic civil society has multiple responsibilities: promoting civil discourse is one, but pushing back against the always-present mob mentality is one equally as important.
* * * * *
Notes:
[1] Quote about incivility from “Shift in education
underway,” by Gene A. Budig and Alan Heaps, Guest Commentary in (Champaign IL)
News-Gazette, January 22, 2017, p.
C-2.
A new form of landscape photography has emerged in the Era of Google, one in which I would term “screen-shot” or “virtual” (re)photography. It involves capturing imagery that has already previously been captured (or created) and is now available for viewing on a digital-generated screen surface.
Here the process is unpacked specifically in regards to Google
Maps Street View. Google maps and its API’s (Application Program Interface)
have permeated our visually-dominated culture in a myriad of ways on the web,
on mobile devices, and in GPS navigation units, with storehouses of real-time
accessible information catering to practically every interest and inquiry. Using
this eponymous mapping application which combines GPS satellite and street
mapping with the geographical imagery associated with the map, landscape or
urban-scape photography has never been easier. [1]
For one thing, it is no longer necessary to be physically
present at a location in order to capture an image of a particular place. True,
when capturing Google imagery through screen shots, the image capture is going
to be dated to the time of the initial Google photographic event - the moment when
the Google photographing team drove (or walked by) with their special 360
degree cameras taking photos. These images will eventually be processed, stitched together,
and then linked to their respective GPS locations for display on the Google
maps site. So, in some places the images may be several years old.
But in that sense, all photography is dated from the instant
the image is taken. It is a window into a slice of the Real World of a certain
place at a certain time, one that can never be exactly (re)produced again simply
because of the passage of time that can cause the scene to change ever so
slightly even in a couple seconds.
Admittedly, when working with Google Street View, one is
restricted to only capturing imagery that Google has made
available.(Additionally, there is the downside of the images overlaid with
Google’s little information boxes and symbols.) Many sites not covered yet or
currently inaccessible to Google’s ground-based photographic technology haven’t
been photographed and thus cannot be (re)captured. Google compensates for this
somewhat by allowing independent photographic uploads with GPS locations to be
pinpointed on the Google maps.
Even though the professional or amateur photographer who
goes on location has more leeway to veer off the beaten path than Google’s
on-the-payroll photographic teams fulfilling their assignments, one’s own
financial, physical, and time limitations also restrict one’s ability to capture the imagery
one might like. Moreover, on streets and roads with heavy traffic one might not
want to risk darting out into the traffic long enough to take the street shots that
the Google team has taken driving along, which can be (re)captured as
high-quality still shots. Of course, then you have all the people taking
cruising videos on many major and even minor thoroughfares riding from one
point to another and then uploading them to YouTube or Vimeo - but those videos
still can’t match Google in allowing a (re)photographer to carefully arrange framed
still shots along the route.
According to Denis Dutton, our affinity for landscape
imagery may be embedded into our genes as evolutionary adaptations. [2] Our
Pleistocene ancestors gazed upon distant verdant vistas as potential sources of
sustenance or/and habitat, sizing them up through various prior experiences as
advantageous or disadvantageous. In the long term, this connection to the
landscape became embedded into our psyches as part of humanity’s general outlook.
As a result (in Dutton’s theory), we still harbor great longing to be a part of
the landscape scenes we admire and gaze upon with affection – hence, if you
care to believe it, the popularity of landscape imagery in calendar art. For
those of us growing up in the modern urban streetscape, however, the streets
may induce the same sort of affections in a primitive sort of way, as we size
up the (sub)urban surroundings in similar terms of either danger, or the affective
results it can provide us through experiences such as shopping, entertainment,
or various services we need.
Google Street View offers the screen-shot or “virtual” photographer
similar choices to if the photographer was actually at the location with image
capturing device in tow, i.e.. digital camera, mobile device, etc. There is the
ability to alter perspective, zoom and pan, and select a portion of the image
to capture. Of course like any digital imagery, it is easy to call up any of
the available image processing apps to enhance or distort the image at will with
all sorts of effects.
Sharing images is linked to the human desire to share
experiences. We experience something that affects us in some way, and we like
others to experience that feeling, too. As the lyrics in the 70s rocker Peter
Frampton song go, “Do you feel like we do.” The human hunger for, and
entrancement with, imagery gave rise to the full-blown Age of Photography early
in the 20th century. As our grandparents and great-grandparents browsed
through photo albums or presented 35mm slide shows and 8mm home movies on a
Saturday night to family members and friends, so we upload our photos and
videos to social media for others to see and enjoy as well.
But there’s also a subversive side to (re)photographing a
scene. And it relates to the social media phenomenon of posting photos online not
only as a means of sharing experiences – certainly one of the motivating drivers
of social media – but also as “proof” of one’s being in a certain place, and
the subsequent underlying prestige that being “there” in person produces.
Traveling outside one’s usual environs has always had an
exotic appeal relating to the change in one’s usually fixed geospatial location,
even if one travels only a short distance (“short” being relative to the people
involved and their social, cultural, and historical context). Without a doubt,
however, the farther one travels from one’s “home” location, and especially to
places of noteworthy holiday excursion, the more the cachet attached to the
trip.
By (re)photographing a scene without actually physically
being there challenges and undermines this cachet of the whole notion that
travel somehow elevates one’s status in some fashion or another. Why should it
matter that I’m not “there” when I take a picture – or capture an image - of a
scene that I like in some respect or want to retain for whatever reason I have
in mind, even if on a purely curatorial basis?
Appropriation has been an integral and noted part of
postmodern artistic practice. Long before Sherri Levine’s photographs of famous
photographs, Robert Rauschenberg was incorporating bits and pieces of the
visual ephemera of modern life into his combines and photomontages. On the
Internet, the ubiquity of images and the ease of downloading and copying them
has made the repositioning of images from their original contexts into one’s
own personal usage and presentation almost effortless. Images now freely float
half in the Real World and half in Virtual Reality untethered to any fixed
reference point.
The indexical quality that photographs in the pre-digital
era were purported to possess – that a photograph points to something in the
Real World as truthful image of whatever was recorded on film – has for all
intents and purposes, vanished in the digital era. Since images can be conjured
up and altered at will, their veracity has also disappeared, and are now called
into question at every turn.
However, the greater lesson to be learned, and perhaps more
easily apprehended in virtual photography, is that photography is, and never
was, neutral or objective in its image capture. The subjective decisions made
by the photographer either beforehand or on the spot embed any image taken with
all of the personal worldview of the photographer. For example, in my series of
“Sunset Boulevard” screen captures (from Google Maps Street View along Sunset
Blvd. in Los Angeles)
I concentrate on the grittier side of the street, so to speak.
The scenes I have chosen in this series deliberately reflect
or intend to create an emotional state or even promote a political or
ideological position, whatever that may be. But on another level, I can also be
giving false image of place through my selection decisions. I illustrate this
by presenting an alternative set of images from the Sunset Blvd. series, which
show glitzier and upscale portions of the strip that I deliberately omitted
from the first set.
I can also, and do try to, inject an aesthetic consideration
into my subject matter in the way that I adjust the framing and focus and
extent of the capture through whatever tools are available to me on my screen
capture device. The intentionality, then, becomes the means by which my image
captures steer the imagery into the realm of art. [3]
Moreover, a grouping of scenes performs an additive function
in creating the statement (if there is one) that an artist wishes to make. And
groupings are in line with the mass of images that social media users blithely
upload at once from recent experiences. This not saying that the carefully
composed singular shot still can’t have great impact, just that opposed to the
analog era where film itself and film processing was relatively expensive,
multiple image shots are the norm in the digital world for even the most casual
user.
For instance, as a multimedia artist working in traditional
artmarking, digital photography, and video I have hard drives, various media types,
and cloud storage for thousands of personal and art-related images. I have
heard of others who have many, many more – who knows, perhaps as much as 100,000
or even greater in some cases. Only professional photographers, with their own
darkrooms and photographic developing equipment, would have been storing that
many images back in the analog days. Images today are ubiquitous and cheap and
instances of them proliferate like weeds across the web.
As a result, the digital world is just brimming with
potential to provide the means to spawn not only variations of traditional
imagery but totally new kinds as well. New media artists are already engaged in
this direction, imagining, experimenting and transforming the visual landscape
in ways we will hardly recognize in the decades to come.
Reference:
[1]
Understanding Google Street View:
[2] Dutton, Denis. (2009). The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, and human evolution. New York: Bloomsbury
Press.
[3] Some aestheticians, such as Monroe Beardsley, dispute
artist’s intentionality as a factor in judging the success of a work of art.
Ibid., pp. 167 -8.
Completed August 13, 2016
©2016 Daniel John Bornt
Street View Imagery:
Merle spoke about and
told the stories of folks who never quite got anything out of life
except the hands they were dealt. These were people at the edges of
society marginalized and swept under the rug, knowing that for them
success was an always an illusion dancing in front of them they hadn’t
the slightest chance of catching.
Haggard’s ‘prison’ songs could be seen as metaphors for the entrapping loneliness of modern life, people feeling trapped in their lives and caught up in forces beyond their control. “I’m a Lonesome Fugitive,” his first number one single, echoed this theme: “Down every road, there’s always one more city; I’m on the run, the highway is my home.” In just over a dozen words, Merle captured the rootlessness, the restlessness, the angst of America of the 60s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejmDQp13YII
And so the course was set for the all the wonderful songs that followed, people living with and trying to deal with the mental and physical constraints of weaknesses, addictions, and heartbreak. Merle lived them all, and crafted those existential situations into tunes and melodies that all of us could relate to. #merlehaggard #thehag (more to come)
Haggard’s ‘prison’ songs could be seen as metaphors for the entrapping loneliness of modern life, people feeling trapped in their lives and caught up in forces beyond their control. “I’m a Lonesome Fugitive,” his first number one single, echoed this theme: “Down every road, there’s always one more city; I’m on the run, the highway is my home.” In just over a dozen words, Merle captured the rootlessness, the restlessness, the angst of America of the 60s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejmDQp13YII
And so the course was set for the all the wonderful songs that followed, people living with and trying to deal with the mental and physical constraints of weaknesses, addictions, and heartbreak. Merle lived them all, and crafted those existential situations into tunes and melodies that all of us could relate to. #merlehaggard #thehag (more to come)
