Inside the Laurel Canyon...

[PopHistorian]

The Laurel Canyon series has finally appeared as a book:

_http://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/1909394122/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400721775&sr=1-1&keywords=weird+scenes+inside+the+canyon

Here is an article about it:
_http://dangerousminds.net/comments/classic_rock_conspiracy_theory_weird_scenes_inside_the_canyon

 

[Palinurus]

Thanks for signaling this, PopHistorian. Otherwise I surely would've missed out on this one.

EDIT: spelling

 

[Renaissance]

In the page before this one, Niall brought up some questionable issues with Dave McGowan and his work. Might be good to consider if buying his book. I was pretty amazed with the series when it first came out, but with his support of the credulous 'actor theory' with the Boston bombing, I think I'll be skipping it.

 

[Palinurus]

Thanks for the warning, Renaissance.

I'm aware of these criticisms. As a matter of fact I have reread them today and will keep them in mind. I just don't think they're prohibitive for the rest of this work which I wasn't planning to consider as gospel anyway. The book offers just one rather peculiar viewpoint on a part of recent history which I've been both witness to as well as active participant in, and I had a similar amazement with the series while it developed so I consider it a useful document to have handy. I'll probably buy the Kindle edition when I've got some money to spare, but I don't know yet how soon that would possibly be. Could be long enough to reconsider or even discard in favor of other pressing needs. Who knows? Nevertheless, in abstracto I'm convinced the author deserves some remuneration for his efforts and for the entertainment he provided. Energy balance, reciprocation, and all that...

 

[Joe]

Nevertheless, in abstracto I'm convinced the author deserves some remuneration for his efforts and for the entertainment he provided. Energy balance, reciprocation, and all that...

I don't think that a primary motivation should be to provide him some remuneration for his efforts, but rather that if you found that the information he put together to be valuable, then you should pay the asking price for it. That's a fair exchange (if the price if fair in your opinion based on the quality of the information). My motivation for saying this is out of concern that you might be confusing comments from recent sessions about "energy balance" vis a vis our network and applying the concept where it doesn't really apply or outside of the context in which it was given.

My own experience of McGowan is that he is a willfully and needlessly rude and abusive person (at least in his online persona) who cannot bear to be disagreed with, regardless of the facts. Once he decides that something is true, there's no changing his mind. That doesn't mean that the information he has collected isn't valuable however, but it might serve as a caveat when reading it.

 

[Palinurus]

My motivation for saying this is out of concern that you might be confusing comments from recent sessions about "energy balance" vis a vis our network and applying the concept where it doesn't really apply or outside of the context in which it was given.

Thank you for your comment and your concern, Perceval. Much obliged.

In fact, there may be some misunderstanding of these concepts on my side as I took the remarks of the C's about fair exchange and energy balance to be applicable not only within the Work as such and in the context of the forum activities etc. in general, but also outside of that specific context in contacts and relationships with other people close by or less close, even as remote as the author of a book or series of articles which contributed to my knowledge and brought me some pleasure while reading them. That's based on these excerpts from the latest session on May 17,2014:

Q: (L) But are you talking particularly about people engaged in the Work, or just anybody in general?

A: Anybody, but double in the work.

<snip>

(Aleana) What about in your daily life? I mean, even if it's just talking about health issues with people... I mean, not forcing on it on them, but just putting things out there just to see what responses you get? Or is it more just confine it to the forum and work as much as you can on SOTT and the forum?

A: The latter is very important in terms of balancing energy you have received. But you can also extend assistance to those around you if they are asking.

Q: (L) Anything else? Is there anything else we need on this topic?

(Chu) No, I mean, I think what they're saying is for example if you're disrespectful to people outside, or you devalue them or whatever, you're also not applying the Work principles. You have to be strategic.

(L) Yeah, external considering and all that.

(Chu) Yeah.

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but being the change you want to see in the world seems to me to be pretty inclusive all round where ever possible and doable and worth the effort. That McGowan is rather a dork and quite convinced of his own opinions has no bearing on this matter, I think.

...if you found that the information he put together to be valuable, then you should pay the asking price for it. That's a fair exchange (if the price if fair in your opinion based on the quality of the information).

This is indeed the case in this particular instance.

 

[Joe]

The answer that preceded that question included:

If a person devalues another's efforts, they will find their own efforts devalued. If you need to unblock a certain area of your life, make the effort to give what you want or need yourself.

I suppose my point was that we probably shouldn't go around deciding that anything produced by anyone is valuable. But to know if something is valuable we need data. Information is problematic in that it can be subtly twisted to appear legitimate when it isn't. Small point really, and I think you understand it.

 

[Palinurus]

The answer that preceded that question included:

If a person devalues another's efforts, they will find their own efforts devalued. If you need to unblock a certain area of your life, make the effort to give what you want or need yourself.

I suppose my point was that we probably shouldn't go around deciding that anything produced by anyone is valuable. But to know if something is valuable we need data. Information is problematic in that it can be subtly twisted to appear legitimate when it isn't. Small point really, and I think you understand it.

Well, I don't think this is such a small point at all and I hope I do understand what you mean.

The Laurel Canyon series as such is problematical at best because of its proposed viewpoint or hypothesis, as well as because of the way in which it was researched and presented. So any information about the author or other contextual and even intra-textual evidence will be welcome in order to better assess the value and merits of this product as a viable, trustworthy and more or less objective piece of historical narrative or painstaking historical analysis. That's one side of this 'problem'.

Another side is what this series meant for me as a reader when and while I was first confronted with it originally, and even now that it has become available as a book. I mean what place it took in my own personal intellectual and even emotional development. I cannot help myself but to feel some sort of gratitude towards McGowan's efforts to expose --or even over-expose for that matter-- one particular rather dark undercurrent in the development of rock and pop and assorted other seemingly rebellious phenomena of that time period, and the possible or even probable cointelpro aspects of same.

For me it had some sort of a revelatory quality to read a rather eloquent elaboration of a thesis which I would have suspected to be true myself without having good reasons or sufficient data for that suspicious feeling. McGowan succeeded to clarify that rather murky impression for me and I still feel grateful for having it presented to me.

That's mainly what prompted me to write what I previously presented. After this discussion I tend to think I had better not used the term in abstracto to bring my point across as in hindsight that seems to be the main reason for the ensuing remarks. So thanks for calling me out on that; it provided a valuable lesson.

 

[Laura]

At one point while reading the Laurel Canyon series, I decided to dig in and do some research of my own. I don't recall right now the specific case, but I do recall discovering that Dave often "connects dots" that are a real stretch! He also makes declaratory statements that turn out to be not quite accurate, though they may have been bandied about at the time by highly questionable sources. So, I saw that when he had a choice, and the questionable rumor was juicier than the hard facts would indicate, he went for the rumor and declared it to be the "inside scoop."

Having said that, yeah, I think that the whole movement was infiltrated and a lot of malevolent stuff was going on, and there was probably Greenbauming/programming, COINTELPRO and whatnot all over the place.

 

[Palinurus]

Thank you for jumping in and giving your assessment, Laura.

I'm just done reading the current Pierre Lescaudron article on SotT and for me two things stand out at the moment:

* the striking difference in both writing style and composition of the argument based on solid research only, without any liberties concerning fiction overshadowing facts or the favoring of juicy tidbits over logical reasoning;

* the striking parallels concerning how initial genuine impulses of rebellion or resistance or of quests for more freedom can be and have been overtaken and turned upside down by the intentional and purposeful undermining and twisting by a few deviant minds, in the end producing the opposite result to what originally was intended.

In this respect of connecting dots in a responsible manner and carefully linking seemingly separate developments into a coherent whole, Dave McGowan's impressionistic approach and sensationalist rendering appears as rather a miserable failure and a fraudulent fake compared to Pierre Lescaudron's thorough treatment of some comparably similar societal processes -- so much seems blatantly obvious to me now.

It may be a not completely fair comparison on all accounts but it surely is a revealing one, I think.

 

[pauline bird]

The argument set out in this book that there is a strange connection between those in Laurel Canyon music scene and the military is fatuous. The same could be said of every other group of people you might choose. For example, Ivy League university students, doctors in the medical world, bankers, academics, rock scene in New York, and so on. If you delved into the background of those people from the 1960s to 1970s say, I expect you could come up with a high number of people with connections to the military. So much for this Laurel Canyon theory.

 

[Gawan]

The argument set out in this book that there is a strange connection between those in Laurel Canyon music scene and the military is fatuous. The same could be said of every other group of people you might choose. For example, Ivy League university students, doctors in the medical world, bankers, academics, rock scene in New York, and so on. If you delved into the background of those people from the 1960s to 1970s say, I expect you could come up with a high number of people with connections to the military. So much for this Laurel Canyon theory.

Welcome to our forum pauline, seeing as this is your first post on the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.

 

[Joe]

The argument set out in this book that there is a strange connection between those in Laurel Canyon music scene and the military is fatuous. The same could be said of every other group of people you might choose. For example, Ivy League university students, doctors in the medical world, bankers, academics, rock scene in New York, and so on. If you delved into the background of those people from the 1960s to 1970s say, I expect you could come up with a high number of people with connections to the military. So much for this Laurel Canyon theory.

Yeah. And over the past few years we've learned that McGowan was more than a little 'unhinged'.

 

[Voyageur]

The argument set out in this book that there is a strange connection between those in Laurel Canyon music scene and the military is fatuous. The same could be said of every other group of people you might choose. For example, Ivy League university students, doctors in the medical world, bankers, academics, rock scene in New York, and so on. If you delved into the background of those people from the 1960s to 1970s say, I expect you could come up with a high number of people with connections to the military. So much for this Laurel Canyon theory.

Yeah. And over the past few years we've learned that McGowan was more than a little 'unhinged'.

A couple of pages back the discussion originally came up on McGowan citing Frank Zappa's central role in LC, except Frank had other things to say against the MIC, which McGowan said Frank was supportive of the MIC - a few video links in rebuttal were offered.

At various times he was a guest on many mainstream shows and he discusses how he was brought up to first appreciate the concept of CNN (24 hr. news), yet then it fell apart. The following video is a recent collection by somebody in the inter-youtube world of Zappa's comments on many world issues. Issues such as ethnic bio-engineered weaponry was one comment (now that would have shocked people back then), and the overall farce of the political state. You will have to decide what seems relevant and where he goes off on possible tangents; remembering that this was 30 yeas ago +/-.

When it comes to what kind of music he played, this often has a negative connotation, and some of it was just that, hyper-negative. He also, as was mentioned earlier, was well versed in classical music and spent a lot of time composing. Of some of this former raunchy music (which was indeed rude for the listener - shocks), the question can be asked, why did he do this? I don't ultimately know why, yet suspect that his disillusionment with the recording industry compelled him to spoof it, to mock the produces and artist thieves, and he mocked the people who lapped up much of the contrived theater - he perhaps gave them exactly what he thought of them. He seemed to have taken what was being industrially and socially worked up for public consumption in the music industry of the time (which has not really changed) and turned it on its head, or so it is possible. He seems to mock the produces and consumers for music such as punk-rock with his own filthy counter - except, if you pass over the lyrics, peel that back, he and the musicians are actually playing tightly produced music.

He might discuss these reasons somewhere, however, I've not come across it and so it's just speculation.

Video titled:

WHAT FRANK ZAPPA WANTED YOU TO KNOW

http://<iframe width="854" height="...TU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Yupo]

I noticed that Dave McGowan's stuff is posted online again. It was unavailable (to my searching) after he died.

_http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/