[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