Re: Sartwell's Laws

[Basil Alsamarai <bxa5@po.cwru.edu>]

>Sartwell's First Law dictates that the quality of a rock band is inversely
>proportional to its pretentiousness, with pretentiousness expressed as a
>ratio of artistic ambition to artistic accomplishment. The higher the rating,
>the professor says, the worse the band. 
>
>But where the Beatles fell short was under Sartwell's Second Law. To wit, the
>quality of a Rock song varies inversely as the square of its distance from
>the blues. 

Fellow Who afficionados,
   I really wouldn't take any of this baloney seriously. Sartwell's Laws
are really just arbitrary assumptions made with a certain type of music in
mind. It seems to me that Prof. Sartwell is a luddite who just can't get
used to the fact that rock and roll has outgrown the blues, and has
developed its own style, form, and practicioners.
   The supposed "rule 2" blatantly contradicts the first. In order to be a
quality rock band, according to the Prof., one must be a faithful
practitioner of the blues, but in my mind, that substantially reduces
artistic accomplishment. Just look at the Beatles' "Rubber Soul" -- this
album fused R&B with Dylan-inspired folk-rock to create some amazing songs
(ie, "In My Life", "Wait", "I'm Looking Through You", "Norwegian Wood",
"Nowhere Man"). This movement to fuse pop-R&B w/ folk resulted in an
unprecedented level of rock intellectualism and artistry, without which
Townshend could never have gotten away such concepts as "Tommy" and
"Quadrophenia". Artists like The Who and The Beatles began with roots rock
and R&B and developed it, through a number of influences (heck, Pete
himself credits Baroque English composer Purcell for the intro to "Pinball
Wizard") that Sartwell criticizes as dated, but that actually breathed new
life into the genre. Imagine what music would be like if every hit single
to this day sounded like "Twist and Shout"! 
   Furthermore, Prof. Sartwell apparently isn't at all familiar with the
early Beatles, whom he lauds as "in '64 or '65...one of the best R&B bands
ever to play", and the Rolling Stones at all. The Beatles were never
predominantly an R&B band, and in fact dabbled with show tunes ("'Till
There Was You"), popular standards ("A Taste of Honey"), and folk ("You've
Got to Hide Your Love Away"). All these songs were released between '63 and
'65, and in fact, "Rubber Soul" (the dreaded album) was released in '65
also! And if the Rolling Stones are so bluesy, then explain "She's A
Rainbow", "Sympathy for the Devil", "Ruby Tuesday", "As Tears Go By",
etc....the list of major, non-bluesy singles goes on and on.
   Stripped down to the essentials, Sartwell's bogus analysis reeks of a
single vicious  ideology -- an aversion towards rock as an original
artistic medium. He lauds the less meaningful, and attacks artists that try
to express themselves originally and actually care about their causes. The
early U2 sang of a country (Ireland) torn by terrible religious
division...I think some pretentiousness and ambition with regards to their
subject is pretty warranted! The early Bruce Springsteen wrote "New York
City Serenade", which is nothing short of a folk masterpiece. ``An
elaborateness usually reserved for Wagnerian opera''? I suppose he'd prefer
that they just sticked to 1-4-5 chord progressions, instead of dealing in
lush harmonies and dramatic forms.  
   What this all comes down to is that Prof. Sartwell can't deal with rock
as an art form, and would rather that you listen to repetitive,
mind-numbing rehashes of the blues performed by artists with no cause nor
artistic desire. Anyone who even remotely respects Pete Townshend should
know better than to believe this garbage.
	--Basil Alsamarai