[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: poetry



>From: Brian <bmcgow01@wild.vill.edu>
>To: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: poetry
>
>Should have included this in my last message, but I forgot, sorry:
>
>The personification you describe is a form of symbolism.  I have to say 
that I agree the acid queen is something, but my problem is that I don't 
know what.  In fact Townshend's greatest failure, in my mind, is that 
way too much of his symbolism is up to personal intepretation.  What 
mean by that is this:  It is really easy to make something that means 
something different to each person, but truly good art has some purpose 
behind it.  While I agree that there is a purpose to Tommy, I think it 
impossible to know what that is, simply because Townshend himself has 
given it dozens of meanings.  On the contrary, a Dickinson poem may be 
on different levels, but it means ONE thing.  There is no lack of 
clarity in a good Dickinson poem, but you often have to work a little to 
find it.

This is that same "haphazard" quality I was talking about.  PT's work 
always seems to make perfect sense on a subconscious level, but it's 
nearly impossible to work through on an intellectual basis.  I'm not 
going to complain at any volume, though.  It's fine with me.  If art was 
all the same, this would be a really dull world, and actually I'm 
gratified that PT has a certain recognition.  I like that subconscious 
stuff, but typically the intellectuals rule.  And BTW, I don't know that 
it's so easy on the scale that PT does it.  It may be easy to feel, but 
it's difficult to express with any coherence.


>> We haven't really discussed different artistic styles, other than to 
say "apples" vs. "oranges," but I suspect PT is an impressionist.  

>
>We can discuss style if you wish, I happen to feel that is very 
relevent here.  I would have to stay within the realm of writers with 
Townshend, because at heart that is what I think he is.  So I would call 
him a romantic.  I'm sure you read a lot of the crap the Emerson and 
Thorou [sic] wrote, if not I don't think you're missing much.  They were 
concerned with trying to find God in emotions.  They didn't care much 
about intellectual matters, because they were kind of revolting against 
the secularism of the era.  This is why I tried to link Townshend with 
Whitman, but for some reason the discussion focussed on Dickinson 
instead. 

Hmmm.  PT says that John Entwistle is the romantic.  I always thought 
Pete was an idealist, as far as philosophies go, but I'll have to think 
about it as a style. There was a certain romantic quality to the  "back 
to nature" movement of the sixties, so maybe you're right.  After all, 
the romantics didn't all die out just because their style went out of 
style.  And nobody creates something out of nothing.  Everything has to 
be synthesized out of previous human experience, so it wouldn't be a big 
a big surprise if PT drew on several sources to put together his 
particular voice.  There are realist elements to his work, as well. 


>One of the biggest reasons I feel that Townshend is just "average," is 
that he is more than 100 years past his time.  A truly great poet is 
ahead of their time, like Dickinson or Whitman, not behind.

How about "out of his time."  Pete Townshend has always had really 
screwy ideas about how to do things--a definite non-conformist.  Maybe a 
lot of it came from starting out without being educated in music or 
song-writing convention; The Who was pretty much free to make things up 
as they went along (and damned if they wouldn't).  But the man persists.  
Thirty-five years later, he's still pretty much on the lunatic fringe.

I do think that with this Broadway thing, he's finally making a gesture 
toward preserving the music within a traditional institution. As a music 
fan, I like Roger's direction better, with Michael Kamen and the 
Juilliard orchestra.  Without The Who (or TED) to give it voice, the 
music might disappear, but once it's scored and lodged securely in the 
standard pidgeonholes, it won't.   


>> BTW is your example of Ms. Dickinson's work about sex?  That would be 
my guess, according to conventional symbolism.  
>
>You are on the right track, but it is more narrow than that.  You must 
keep in mind when reading Dickinson that NOBODY was supposed to read 
these poems, hence the reason they often seem very personal. 

Once you've got the key, it's not that hard to interpret the poem.  This 
is the "discussion" I got into with somebody else, that "conventional" 
symbolism is the only kind, and that you can't make it up as you go 
along.  I definitely disagree about that.  Snakes are a symbol of 
fertility from way back (you remember The Goddess, don't you?), but the 
Acid Queen is much more colorful and fun.


>I think most symbolism is missed all the time.  I mean if you've heard 
"American Pie," that song is packed with symbolism and juxtapositions 
even Heller would be proud of, but do you really think 90% of the 
listeners get it?  I don't.
>

Don McLean says it's a joke.  Still, lots of people have fun worrying 
with it.

keets

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com