Anyone Watch The Billie Eilish Doc?

[PureX]

I remember the night the Beatles were on the Ed Sullivan Show. I was only 6 years old at the time, sitting on the floor with my brother watching the TV while the folks were getting ready to go out for the evening. And, somehow, even as young as I was, when they came on, I understood that this was a big deal. This was something very special. A "sea change" was happening before my eyes. And that it was about 'us kids', and not the adults. Even at 6 years old, I recognized that there was a dividing line between this new thing, and whatever went before it. Almost like it was a secret message. Or some metaphysical apparition that was hidden in plain sight within the world of the grown ups, that they could not see.

This music was 'ours'. It came from us, and it spoke to us, and conveyed the thoughts and rhythms of our hearts and minds, specifically, into the cosmos of human history. And what an amazing and powerful thing that was.

I could not have articulated any of this at the time, of course. Even if I had been a teenager, it would still have been too momentus to explain. It could only be experienced, intuitively. And it continued on through the phenomenon of the Beatles, to a whole generation of young people expressing themselves through music.

That was a long time ago. That special generation of young, unique, creative beings is just an echo, now, in that cosmos of human history. The few participants that are still alive are old. In their 60s and 70s. And their voices have long since been drowned out by music created by corporate bankers and bean-counters looking to cash in on a "teen spirit" that they know nothing at all about. And so could only mimic, grotesquely. Hence, the ugly dross that has been passed off as popular music for the last 50 years.

With a few noted exceptions. A few sparks here and there of something truly interesting, honest, and unique. Something created by the young, and for the young, and not by bankers and bean-counters looking to cash in on "teen spirit". And if you are still able to remember what that's like; what that looks and sounds like, you can get a glimpse of it, too. Her name is Billie Eilish.

This is a trailer for the documentary I'm talking about. If you're an old fart (like me) and don't care, that's fine. She's not making music for you and I. But if you're interested in the phenomena of creativity, and you consider the youngsters among us to be an important part of our human society and culture (like me), check it out. That's all I'm saying.

Trailer for Documentary ...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. But honestly I'm not really into her music. A few years before her, the new teen star making waves was Lorde. I prefer Lorde. I love her lyricism.

Funny you mentioned the Beatles and Ed Sullivan. My mom was a teen when that was on. That episode where they played I Want to Hold Your Hand. She said her dad called her in to watch it, but she was bored with and walked away. Soon after, they had the Rolling Stones playing Let's Spend the Night Together and she loved it, and her dad hated it. Lol. Mind you, the Beatles were the NSync or Backstreet Boys of their day when they first started. They only got interesting after they dropped acid and went to India.

 

[Secret Chief]

Hence, the ugly dross that has been passed off as popular music for the last 50 years.With a few noted exceptions. A few sparks here and there of something truly interesting, honest, and unique.

Really? 50 years? I consider that to be a massive disservice to a great many artists over those decades. The bankers and bean counters have always been there; it's the music industry. The interesting stuff might not be at the top of the charts, it might be under the radar, but it's never gone away. I'm an old fart and I do care and have always cared about music (in one form or another).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't even know what/who she was until I saw that trailer. I still don't care.

No. But honestly I'm not really into her music. A few years before her, the new teen star making waves was Lorde. I prefer Lorde. I love her lyricism.

Funny you mentioned the Beatles and Ed Sullivan. My mom was a teen when that was on. That episode where they played I Want to Hold Your Hand. She said her dad called her in to watch it, but she was bored with and walked away. Soon after, they had the Rolling Stones playing Let's Spend the Night Together and she loved it, and her dad hated it. Lol. Mind you, the Beatles were the NSync or Backstreet Boys of their day when they first started. They only got interesting after they dropped acid and went to India.

Yup. they were basically pop rubbish. I really don't think they were good until they went their separate ways, and their music went from a step above bubblegum bunk to diving into the deep end.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I suspect it is way easier for an artist to gain traction in the age of social media and the Internet than it was in the '60s or '70s. The Beatles are still widely beloved over 50 years after their debut. Only time will tell whether any of today's artists will stand the test of time so remarkably well.

Personally, I don't care about Billie Eilish's music, although I think her success is quite impressive. Still, as far as modern artists go, I much prefer the music of the likes of Ghost, Imagine Dragons, and Halestorm.

 

[74x12]

I remember the night the Beatles were on the Ed Sullivan Show. I was only 6 years old at the time, sitting on the floor with my brother watching the TV while the folks were getting ready to go out for the evening. And, somehow, even as young as I was, when they came on, I understood that this was a big deal. This was something very special. A "sea change" was happening before my eyes. And that it was about 'us kids', and not the adults. Even at 6 years old, I recognized that there was a dividing line between this new thing, and whatever went before it. Almost like it was a secret message. Or some metaphysical apparition that was hidden in plain sight within the world of the grown ups, that they could not see.

This music was 'ours'. It came from us, and it spoke to us, and conveyed the thoughts and rhythms of our hearts and minds, specifically, into the cosmos of human history. And what an amazing and powerful thing that was.

I could not have articulated any of this at the time, of course. Even if I had been a teenager, it would still have been too momentus to explain. It could only be experienced, intuitively. And it continued on through the phenomenon of the Beatles, to a whole generation of young people expressing themselves through music.

That was a long time ago. That special generation of young, unique, creative beings is just an echo, now, in that cosmos of human history. The few participants that are still alive are old. In their 60s and 70s. And their voices have long since been drowned out by music created by corporate bankers and bean-counters looking to cash in on a "teen spirit" that they know nothing at all about. And so could only mimic, grotesquely. Hence, the ugly dross that has been passed off as popular music for the last 50 years.

With a few noted exceptions. A few sparks here and there of something truly interesting, honest, and unique. Something created by the young, and for the young, and not by bankers and bean-counters looking to cash in on "teen spirit". And if you are still able to remember what that's like; what that looks and sounds like, you can get a glimpse of it, too. Her name is Billie Eilish.

This is a trailer for the documentary I'm talking about. If you're an old fart (like me) and don't care, that's fine. She's not making music for you and I. But if you're interested in the phenomena of creativity, and you consider the youngsters among us to be an important part of our human society and culture (like me), check it out. That's all I'm saying.

Trailer for Documentary ...

No, her music is boring and satanic. Anyway, it's all controlled. Culture, especially for youth is carefully scripted ... the point is to make it look natural and "grassroots" but it's far from that. The division between generations is on purpose and is so sharp because it's by design as each new generation is taken one step further towards P.P.P. That is "perfectly programmed persons". This on a grander scale follows the old indoctrination techniques classic to the likes the Bavarian illuminati of old. The dumbing down has occurred both through media and chemically via chemical spraying (chemtrails), vaccines and food/water. This is in order to make people more susceptible to mind control. The whole world is basically in a trance like state at this point.

The entertainment industry is highly culpable and complicit in the destruction of people both physically and morally.

 

[SomeRandom]

I happen to like Billie. I quite enjoyed the sombre No Time to Die Bond theme she did. Though it was pretty reminiscent of Skyfall, tbh
Are there artists I like better? Yeah. But I dunno. She does seem to speak to “zoomers” pretty effectively. I’m a Mellinial so I grew up on different musical trends.
And as much as I respect the Beatles, a bit harsh to conclude anything in between them and Billie is trash. I mean my generation was taught to revere Nirvana for instance. Though he was a tiny bit before my time. Sort of

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I didn't even know what/who she was until I saw that trailer. I still don't care.

Yup. they were basically pop rubbish. I really don't think they were good until they went their separate ways, and their music went from a step above bubblegum bunk to diving into the deep end.

I honestly don't care about the Beatles. They're the most overrated thing. I just really enjoy Yellow Submarine (the film and the soundtrack), when it comes to them. Lol. David Bowie is more important to art than anything they put out. Him and Morrissey are the British artists that mean more to me than a million Lennons.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I honestly don't care about the Beatles. They're the most overrated thing. I just really enjoy Yellow Submarine (the film and the soundtrack), when it comes to them. Lol. David Bowie is more important to art than anything they put out. Him and Morrissey are the British artists that mean more to me than a million Lennons.

Yup. I'd definitely prefer the rock n roll of the Stones when it comes to those two bands.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yup. I'd definitely prefer the rock n roll of the Stones when it comes to those two bands.

Definitely. The Stones are legends and they can still rock. Wow. I saw them live and Mick still has his moves. Lol. Put me to shame when my mom took me to see them and I was like "I don't want to see these old men". She would rub it in my face after that. Haha.

 

[PureX]

No. But honestly I'm not really into her music. A few years before her, the new teen star making waves was Lorde. I prefer Lorde. I love her lyricism.

Funny you mentioned the Beatles and Ed Sullivan. My mom was a teen when that was on. That episode where they played I Want to Hold Your Hand. She said her dad called her in to watch it, but she was bored with and walked away. Soon after, they had the Rolling Stones playing Let's Spend the Night Together and she loved it, and her dad hated it. Lol. Mind you, the Beatles were the NSync or Backstreet Boys of their day when they first started. They only got interesting after they dropped acid and went to India.

For me, it's not about whether I like the music or not. Billie Eilish is not making music for old men like me. What I find interesting is the connection she has to her own generation. To how they are thinking and feeling. And how incredibly good she and her brother are at creating and articulating their songs. On the one hand there is so little to them, and on the other there seems to always be another surprise to find each time I listen.

The 'industry' is full of highly paid professionals that cannot grasp what these two teens (a little older, now) have grasped, innately. Real musicality. Because these kids are artists, not trained pop performers. And they write real song about real things, not wanna-be pop hits. Keep in mind there were no "boy bands" before the Beatles did it. And all of those that followed were mostly derivative hacks intent only on becoming rich and famous by riding a vacuum that the Beatles created and then left behind long ago. And it's the same today with the endless chain of wanna-be 'Modonnas' prancing around in their bras and panties and mimicking sex with near-naked dancers. These are all corporate generated copycats out to cash in on some sick corporate view of 'teen girl fantasies'. To me, they don't count. It's not art, and it's not even creative. it's just a big money machine exploiting whatever gimmick it can for maximum profit.

I watch out for the real thing; that comes along rarely, and creates a whole new 'genre' of it's own. When I was a teenager (late 60s early 70s) there was an explosion of that kind of creativity, and I thought it was the norm. But it wasn't. And by the mid to late 70s music had become a wasteland of derivative wanna-bes looking for the big pay-out. So I'm pleased to spot a spark of the real thing in Billie Eilish and her brother Fineas. And happy to pass it on to anyone that might also be interested in something more than nostalgia and corporate generated schlock.

 

[PureX]

I happen to like Billie. I quite enjoyed the sombre No Time to Die Bond theme she did. Though it was pretty reminiscent of Skyfall, tbh
Are there artists I like better? Yeah. But I dunno. She does seem to speak to “zoomers” pretty effectively. I’m a Mellinial so I grew up on different musical trends.
And as much as I respect the Beatles, a bit harsh to conclude anything in between them and Billie is trash. I mean my generation was taught to revere Nirvana for instance. Though he was a tiny bit before my time. Sort of

There were a few sparks of real creativity in that time span. And Nirvana was one of them. But mostly it's been a long, long spell of derivative corporate generated crap.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For me, it's not about whether I like the music or not. Billie Eilish is not making music for old men like me. What I find interesting is the connection she has to her own generation. To how they are thinking and feeling. And how incredibly good she and her brother are at creating and articulating their songs. On the one hand there is so little to them, and on the other there seems to always be another surprise to find each time you listen.

The 'industry' is full of highly paid professionals that cannot grasp what these two teens (a little older, now) have grasped, innately. Real musicality. Because these kids are artists, not trained pop performers. And they write real song about real things, not wanna-be pop hits. Keep in mind there were no "boy bands" before the Beatles did it. And all of those that followed were mostly derivative hacks intent only on becoming rich and famous by riding the Beatles coattails. And it's the same today with the endless chain of wanna-be 'Modonnas' prancing around in bras and panties and mimicking sex with near-naked dancers. These are all corporate generated copycats out to cash in some sick corporate view of 'teen spirit'. To me, they don't count. It's not art, and it's not really even creative. it's just a big money machine exploiting whatever in can for maximum profit.

I watch out for the real thing, that comes along rarely, and creates a whole new 'genre' of it's own. When I was a teenager (late 60s early 70s) there was an explosion of that kind of creativity, and I though is was the norm. But it wasn't. And by the mid to late 70s music had become a wasteland of derivative wanna-bes looking for the big pay-out. So I am pleased to spot a spark of the real thing in Billie Eilish and her brother Fineas. And happy to pass it on to anyone that might also be interested.

I personally don't share your rather dour attitude towards the state of popular music since the early '70s. It's really sounding like you hold the music of your in the highest regard. That's all well and good, but it's very biased. There have been many brilliant artists who were mainstream or at least bordering it straight through the '90s. I can many amazing names from each decade. I will admit that popular music seems to have started to seriously decline in the '00s and to have plummeted in the 2010s to now, with very few worthy mainstream artists of real note. You can even find articles from music critics bemoaning the state of popular music as bland and empty. I also notice this has coincided with the decline of the popularity of guitar-based music (like rock and its derivatives), and singing being overtaken by rapping. Whether the two phenomena are linked I can't say, but it's interesting to note. Surely there are multiple reasons for this.

 

[PureX]

I personally don't share your rather dour attitude towards the state of popular music since the early '70s. It's really sounding like you hold the music of your in the highest regard. That's all well and good, but it's very biased. There have been many brilliant artists who were mainstream or at least bordering it straight through the '90s. I can many amazing names from each decade. I will admit that popular music seems to have started to seriously decline in the '00s and to have plummeted in the 2010s to now, with very few worthy mainstream artists of real note. You can even find articles from music critics bemoaning the state of popular music as bland and empty. I also notice this has coincided with the decline of the popularity of guitar-based music (like rock and its derivatives), and singing being overtaken by rapping. Whether the two phenomena are linked I can't say, but it's interesting to note. Surely there are multiple reasons for this.

I'm not much interested in technique. I'm more interested in authenticity and creativity. And keep in mind this is in popular music. Not the specialty genres. I feel bad for you trying to defend the vacuous 80s and 90s as any sort of era of creativity. Because it sure wasn't. But again, there were some sparks of life here and there.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not much interested in technique. I'm more interested in authenticity and creativity. And keep in mind this is in popular music. Not the specialty genres. I feel bad for you trying to defend the vacuous 80s and 90s as any sort of era of creativity. Because it sure wasn't. But again, there were some sparks of life here and there.

I quite enjoy '80s and '90s pop music. But when I think of '80s pop music, I think of Depeche Mode and Cyndi Lauper. When I think of '90s pop, I think of Bjork and Nine Inch Nails. (Yes, all those artists were mainstream and sold millions and millions of records at one point, and you had to actually go out and buy your music at a shop in those days, so they were all pop artists by virtue of records sold, which is what "popular music" basically means. They were all on quite corporate mainstream labels, too.)

I can think of others. I don't know what you're thinking of.

 

[SomeRandom]

There were a few sparks of real creativity in that time span. And Nirvana was one of them. But mostly it's been a long, long spell of derivative corporate generated crap.

Well can’t you say that about any entertainment medium?

 

[PureX]

Well can’t you say that about any entertainment medium?

Sure. But I think that's the issue: "entertainment". Entertainment is a product that can be sold for money. And the entertainment industry is all about making money. But art is different. It's about expressing an experience of being. That may be 'entertaining' or it may not be, because being entertaining is not it's primary purpose. So if you are an artist, and you are working in the medium of musical performance, it gets very tricky. The entertainment industry is a powerful entity that tends to poison everything it touches with it's greed and mediocrity. Yet it needs real artists to bring it new ideas and forms of expression, because it generates none on it's own, to exploit.

So that being an artist working in an entertainment medium is always a bit of a dance with the devil. And a swim with the sharks. Which, of course, takes enormous courage, and focus. And even then you're likely to be eaten alive. So far, this particular teenager is doing it incredibly well. But we'll see what the future holds. That money machine is very powerful. And has swallowed up many a young, creative, artists. Turning them into corporate hacks churning out an entertainment product to be sold to the masses for maximum profit. God Speed Billie Eilish.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I quite like Billie Eilish, but I doubt I am qualified to judge her music or where it fits into the span of popular music as such. I was probably too old, and a bit further out, to appreciate The Beatles (or even The Rolling Stones, which would have been preferable for me), since I was more into the Blues and Jazz then, especially the electric Blues of the Yardbirds at the Marquee and other such bands. But then, even if I have enjoyed much of popular music, I have tended to look elsewhere for my enjoyment, and as such, not a lot of this music makes it into the popular sphere, or only occasionally. I'm sure The Beatles did have a large impact though on many, and influence others, just as Bob Dylan (more my music) did on many others too. I too am not a fan of much music over the decades, but I recognise my issues (too banal for my taste), and there probably is much that I would enjoy if I only listened to it, but I am happy with the music I have listened to and still listen to, so little motivation to explore.

 

[PureX]

I quite like Billie Eilish, but I doubt I am qualified to judge her music or where it fits into the span of popular music as such. I was probably too old, and a bit further out, to appreciate The Beatles (or even The Rolling Stones, which would have been preferable for me), since I was more into the Blues and Jazz then, especially the electric Blues of the Yardbirds at the Marquee and other such bands. But then, even if I have enjoyed much of popular music, I have tended to look elsewhere for my enjoyment, and as such, not a lot of this music makes it into the popular sphere, or only occasionally. I'm sure The Beatles did have a large impact though on many, and influence others, just as Bob Dylan (more my music) did on many others too. I too am not a fan of much music over the decades, but I recognise my issues (too banal for my taste), and there probably is much that I would enjoy if I only listened to it, but I am happy with the music I have listened to and still listen to, so little motivation to explore.

One of the things I've noticed about Billie Eilish's music is that it's made to listen to. Like Jazz. You have to sit down, turn it up (put on headphones if that's how you roll) and pay attention. I mean, you don't have to, but if you do, you find all kinds of fun, odd, and interesting surprises in the construction of her songs.

Most pop songs are arranged: verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge (lead break), chorus and done. And the choruses are all identical. A Billie Eilish song never follows that pattern. And the choruses are never repeats even when they sound similar. And she loves to play on the words by reversing their place in phrases and thereby changing the meaning and expand on the theme. She and Finneas, together, are amazing word-smiths. And the music is equally inventive, smart, and often poignant. But to catch all of this we have to be willing to listen. And to pay attention. We have to have our minds open and working as well as our ears.

That isn't something I expected to see gain any traction at all among young people, who's attention span these days have to be measured in milliseconds. Or in the pop music world, generally, for that matter.

 

[SomeRandom]

Sure. But I think that's the issue: "entertainment". Entertainment is a product that can be sold for money. And the entertainment industry is all about making money. But art is different. It's about expressing an experience of being. That may be 'entertaining' or it may not be, because being entertaining is not it's primary purpose. So if you are an artist, and you are working in the medium of musical performance, it gets very tricky. The entertainment industry is a powerful entity that tends to poison everything it touches with it's greed and mediocrity. Yet it needs real artists to bring it new ideas and forms of expression, because it generates none on it's own, to exploit.

So that being an artist working in an entertainment medium is always a bit of a dance with the devil. And a swim with the sharks. Which, of course, takes enormous courage, and focus. And even then you're likely to be eaten alive. So far, this particular teenager is doing it incredibly well. But we'll see what the future holds. That money machine is very powerful. And has swallowed up many a young, creative, artists. Turning them into corporate hacks churning out an entertainment product to be sold to the masses for maximum profit. God Speed Billie Eilish.

So basically capitalism corrupts art?
I don’t disagree.