My car show irk

["Widiker, John D" <john.widiker@xxxxxxx>]

My bitch about car shows is the constant 50's music at 200 decibels. I build
cars from 1961 to 1974, I could not care less who put the bop in anything.
The DJs seem to think that 50's music is the end all be all for everyone at
a car show and it makes my skin crawl. I'd be flat out ecstatic to hear some
Zeppelin or Doors or Jimi Hendrix or even the Beatles (but just barely) at a
car show at some time in my life and preferably at a level that allowed
conversation. One of these days I'm going to end up kicking someone hard in
their rama lama ding dong.

~John 

-----Original Message-----
From: John McEwen [mailto:moparrr@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:53 AM
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Non-AMC powered cars in AMO, and another 'irk'.


>Snip!


Hear hear!

Nothing is so depressing as attending a car show for one marque 
vehicles where there are rows of identical cars lined up neatly - 
separately only by color or esoteric differences.  I occasionally 
attend the local Mopar Show with one of my old Mopars.  However, I'm 
not into "muscle cars" - preferring instead to enjoy the beauty and 
elitism of '50s Mopars.  I own the ancestor of all Mopar muscle - a 
Chrysler 300B.  Occasionally I take my '46 New Yorker Highlander.

I am somewhat depressed to attend these shows as the emphasis is on 
the very thing that John decries.  I call them "Bubble Gum Cars" - 
four or five basic designs, identifiable by color and an obsessive 
concern with under hood trivia.   He who has the cleanest car and the 
biggest engine is automatically elevated to superiority and all 
others must bow down.  Blecch!

Meanwhile, all of the interesting cars (not built between 1966 and 
1973 are lined up in a random fashion around the perimeter.  The 
general public which attends walks quickly through the fields of 
bubble gum and congregates around the perimeter - admiring the 
remnants of their past - while the obsessive few get together to 
admire stamps, tags and decals  (many of which would have been 
removed by the dealer before the vehicle was delivered to the first 
owner) and listen to music by "The 1910 Fruit Gum Company".

Yeah, maybe it's a generational thing - but I like all cars.  I don't 
discriminate except to feel sadness that so many seem to have closed 
their minds to anything but the tiny slice of history they revere. 
As they mature, perhaps they'll recognize the wonderful nature of all 
of automotive history.  After all, one of the greatest Bubble Gum 
Cars of all is an AMX - even if it did come with engines by Ford and 
Mopar:).

Maybe, we'll show them the way some day!

John

>I think a mixing of the models, accomplished easily by
>simply letting cars line up as they arrive, would act
>to 'clean the palate<sp?>' between similar cars. And
>it would foster more connection between owners of
>vastly different models by placing them in close
>proximity, and visitors that might only know about
>certain, well-poublicized models would see different
>ideas on their way between their 'known' models, rather
>than congregating around the ones they know best.
>
>A kind of 'forced-intergration' (that'll go over big,
>using that term!) would get folks moving past all the
>cars, not able to avoid the 'less-bally-hoo'd' models,
>or dismissing them because they aren't 'with the big
>dogs'.
>
>I know, I know, not everybody is a 'classist'- I'm
>not suggesting that. I am saying that, being at several
>shows, I've seen large disparities between the foot
>traffic thru the Hurst cars section and the Matador
>and Ambassador areas. I'm certain it can be discouraging
>for some of these owners. If the cars were properly blended, foot 
>traffic would equalize all over the field, and such 'less-known' cars 
>would get a few more glances, questions and comments. Certainly, the 
>'top dog' cars would only flourish by comparison with a stripped 4-door 
>sedan on one side and a beige wagon on the other. Yet, those other two
>cars might get some more kudos, too.
>
>Beyond easier judging, there may be other solid reasons
>for keeping them grouped that I'm not seeing. Feel free
>to educate me. :)
>
>Anyway, just spitballin'.
>
>John