Art

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>And her innovations are far less silly than feedback.  She actually
changed the face of poetry forever.  Rock is still the same old crap it 
was before Townshend.

Ah, but music's not.  There were people outside rock 'n' roll who 
noticed.


>> Actually, the human being who can influence the course of history by 
act of will is quite rare.
            
>Rare in that relative sense, but these individuals are all over the
place.  History has been crafted by the wills of men, randomness has had 
a very small role in history.

These are competing theories of history, aren't they?  Individual 
efforts vs. collective trends.  Plus, I think anyone would have to admit 
that there is a definite random element--the best laid plans, and all 
that: meteor crashes, sunken ships, Russian winters and AIDS epidemics.  
I take it you subscribe rather heavily to the Individual Effort theory?


> And relating this to The Who, I think they did it.
             
>You can't get away with saying this and not saying how and why.

Not all history is politics.  There IS the humanities side.  I think The 
Who made a small but lasting change in the course of (music) history 
when they connected the two concepts of opera and rock 'n' roll.  Maybe 
it started off as a joke, but it took brass balls to actually get up and 
perform TOMMY on stage at the Met.  That was an audience of serious 
musicians.

There was a time when opera were popular entertainment, same as 
Shakespeare plays.  They've become "classical" now (another term for 
"outdated") and are preserved for their historical value (i.e. they have 
insufficient commercial value to support production costs).  But why 
shouldn't old forms be updated?  Why shouldn't opera become popular 
entertainment again?  Why shouldn't symphony orchestras play popular 
music?  Or string quartets, for that matter?  And who's that little gal 
who plays solo electric violin?  Those are capable musicians, and they 
shouldn't be limited to low-paying "classical" jobs.  It's takes a 
little chutzpa to break down the barriers, but it's already been done.  
We're just watching it play out.

I don't know that Townshend has the strength of will to change history; 
he's too ambivalent about the personal sacrifices.  Roger's the man who 
wants things.


>>BTW, did anybody here read the TIME article a while back that listed 
"My Generation" as one of the pivotal events of the Twentieth Century?
             
>I got a good laugh at this one.  Granted it's a good song, but give me 
break, it a just a song.  

Look at it again.  It's the message TIME identified, that clear, concise 
summary of the generation gap.  The jazz revolution may have been more 
abrupt and far-reaching, but there's no individual song from it that can 
be called representative of the social change.  Pete Townshend put words 
to it.

 
>> I said that The Who's music moved forward, and you said "Art does 
move forward."
             
>Yes, but The Who's music does not move forward.  It is the same crap in 
1982 that it was in 1964.  The music is identicle, the lyrics do change.  
So they are the only part I would consider art by this older
definition, but as I said before I don't see any aestetic goal in rock.

No it's not.  TOMMY's in between, and WHO'S NEXT and QUADROPHENIA, and  
quite a jump in style and complexity.  Plus, the sound changed fairly 
radically in '79, headed off in a new direction.  Since '82 the music 
has continued to become more complex and cross-genre as it's rescored 
for larger ensembles.  Then there's that rap stuff, as early as '89.  
The Who (oh, sorry, that's TED) continues to set standards.  They're not 
as creatively dead as PT believes.

I really do hope a live CD or video comes out from the Quad tour.  
Historically, the score is only one part of the music.  There are 
on-going arguments about how Bach improvised around his musical score; a 
nice video of him doing it would certainly help out.  Entwistle will be 
even harder to imagine.   

           
> That's OK. I think Dickinson is a fairly minor influence, and Tolkein 
DEFINITELY had more influence.

>I told this one to the guys in the English departement, I
think they are still laughing.  In fact they asked me to thank you for
making their weekends.  That is definately a good one.  debating this
any further is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who has ever
read a single line of modern literature.

Actually, we'll have to wait a few years to see how this pans out.  
History is full of examples where popular works later become highly 
influential classics.  Tolkein has made a surprising number of lists 
recently as "serious" or "best" or "influential."

Ditto Townshend and The Who.  Check back with us in a hundred years.

<grin>

keets 


 

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