Mr. McGoo

[Daswer@aol.com]

Oh McGoo!  You've done it again!!
Let's take a closer look:
On the subject of your virulent, ongoing, and quite pointless negative
comparison of Pete Townshend to Emily Dickinson 
>I persist because it is not only possible, but it should be done.  >If
something is not taken in the context of all that came >before it, it cannot
be understood in its entirerty.  If you >want to get a fuller appreciation of
Townshend's work, I >highly suggest that you look into his major influences,
but >then again that would have to come on your time.

"All that came before it"??  First of all, I have read at least a dozen books
on Townshend and The Who and countless articles and I have yet to read the
name of Emily Dickinson in the "context" of these numerous pages.  Fine.
Granted an artist, or even his innumerable and well educated biographers, may
be unaware of many of the influences which have shaped his or her work.  But
never mentioned!?!  Not once!?!  Okay, so let's suppose Emily was an unsung,
seminal influence on his work.  Well, so was Dickens, and Shaw, and
Shakespeare, and Ovid, and Homer, and let's not forget Java man painting
pictographs on his cave wall.  Let's have a healthy discussion of the
influence of Neanderthal man's seminal influence on Emily Dickinson, Pete
Townshend and Pauly Shore.  Then again, let's not.  Do we really want to
microscopically analyze every unnamed influence which, however vaguely
connected, Pete Townshend may have absorbed in order to be able to write
"Happy Jack".  Shall we pen research books about his grade school teachers.
They taught him the alphabet!  That certainly was an influence on his writing!
Let's drop the guessing game of which Literary God affected Pete's work most.
The truth is, Chuck Berry and Bob Dylan put more words in his mouth than Eliot
did, although Pete has claimed Eliot as a major influence.  Ooooh!  Well...
who influenced Bob Dylan?  Emily Dickinson, quite likely.  Woody Guthrie,
certainly.  John Lennon, indeedy... as well as a thousand other artists.  Who
influenced Chuck Berry?  Well, I don't have time to list every blues singer
and country picker who was ever heard on St. Louis radio in the 1940s. Maybe
you do.  Besides, I'm sure that wouldn't half capture the breadth of his
influences, even though he's just a poor dumb rock and roller.

>> Isn't there a class of undergrads somewhere whom
>>you can browbeat with this angels-on-a-pinhead pedantry?
>
>You seem to have been unable to make a rather small leap of >logic, or maybe
you just don't read.  
I don't make leaps of logic, as you recklessly seem to without a net.  And I
do have BS and MA degrees (which strangely enough, have yet to make me believe
my opinion of art is any more valid than any high school graduate I bump
into), so I'm all set with the literacy thing.  Thanks for the concern though.
I am thrilled to know you have a hapless class of students to bully with your
opinion; I can't fathom what we'd be subjected to if you didn't bore them
first.
  
>I mentioned before that I 
>am an historian; therefore, one could correctly reason that I >teach history.
Sorry.  Guess I missed that day's lecture.  I'll try to get someone's notes,
"McGoo teaches history...got it, thanks!"  But, I know of many people who are
historians who do not teach history.  Some of them even write pretty good
books.  No kidding!  I didn't want to "leap" to conclusions though.

>History classes are no place for poetry, that's 
>why we have an English department.  Plus, Mr. Townshend is >not taken as
serious work by any scholar I have met, I'm one >of the only people who would
even give teaching him a >thought.
How many scholars have you met?  All of them!?!  Do you hobnob with every
learned mind on the planet daily?  By the way, if history classes are no place
for poetry, then why are you, a history teacher, subjecting music lovers to a
poetry lesson dressed up as a historical discussion on the insignificance of
rock music?  As John Lennon might say, "Tell me why-y-y-y-y!"  Also, what
would the name of your Pete Townshend class be, "Pete Townshend: Insignificant
Entertainer 101".  Why would you give "even a thought" to teaching about a
mere performer for whom you have no respect?

>> "The Emily Dickinson Is God" Mailing List where, I can only >>presume,
Townshend bashing is the daily mantra.
>Actually they are more concerned with "legitimate" poets, >like Whitman,
Pound and Elliot.

But we humble Who fans are NOT!  Why are you determined to disparage our
interests because they are not yours.  Have a ball with Emily, just find
another ballroom if your only interest here is to beat us with your worm
shaped Emily stick.  I think I can safely take the leap of logic in suggesting
that no one here is interested in listening to your continued dismissal of
Pete Townshend and his work.  Again, if you don't have anything nice to say,
or even pertinent, then buzz off. 

>> Do you sign on to the mailing lists of every rock and
>>roll group to preach the Gospel According Emily or do you >>limit your
artistic
>> pontifications to The British Invasion?
>I have better things to do.  As I said before, you appear to >have ignored
this also, Townshend is a good as rock gets.  Why >not compare the best to the
best?

Fine.  Well, you've made YOUR comparison:  Pete Townshend is as good as rock
gets, and yet, he is a common, rather feeble entertainer who in no way can be
deemed an Artist.  So let me make this logical ipso facto leap for you.  Pete
is rock's best.  Pete is nothing.  Ergo, Rock music is nothing.  Fine.  That
is YOUR opinion.  WE disagree.  Completely.  We have heard your opinion.  We
understand your position in this matter.  Now we can move on.  To other topics
of interest... of interest to individuals who actually like rock music and The
Who; who consider rock music and The Who to be exemplary forms of Art...
despite your labored, patronizing and ultimately futile arguments.

>> Pete was the guy who invented distortion and feedback; >>pretty fucking
innovative, I'd say. How 'bout his use of >>sequenced synthesizer tracks?  the
guys changed the face of >>modern music.
>Interesting that you bring this up.  I was just talking to a >good friend of
mine, a muscian, about the sad state of rock >n'roll.  We came to the
conclusion that the music itself has >barely changed a bit since its humble
beginings.  In fact it is >the same damn thing.  This was formerly my biggest
reason >why rock is not art, but while talking to him, we came
>to a better conclusion.  We decided that the line drawn >between art and
entertainment is simply that art has an >aestetic goal.  Sit-coms, flowers and
sunsets may move you, >but they are not art.  Poetry, the good stuff at least,
has an >aestetic goal, hence it is art.  We were
>unable to find the aestetic goal of rock, in fact we agreed >that there isn't
one; therefore, it is not art.  There is a fine >line between entertainment
and art, rock is entertainment, >good poetry crosses this line and runs as
fast as it can.

Okay, let me try to condense the basis of your arguments here, and I don't
think I am taking you out of context by taking you out of your above paragraph
(and by adding the appropriate missing pronouns, etc):
>"I was just talking to a good friend OF MINE, a musician"
>"WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION that the music itself (rock >music) has barely
changed a bit since its humble beginings"
>"This was formerly MY biggest REASON WHY ROCK IS NOT ART, >but while (I WAS)
talking to him, WE CAME TO A BETTER >CONCLUSION."
>"WE DECIDED that the line drawn between art and >entertainment is simply that
art has an aestetic goal."
>"Poetry, the good stuff at least (AS DETERMINED BY ME AND MY >ILK), has an
aestetic goal, hence it is art (I HAVE DECIDED)".
>"WE were unable to find the aestetic (or aesthetic) goal of >rock, IN FACT WE
AGREED that there isn't one; THEREFORE, it >is not art".

So let me get this straight.  You have Proven that rock is not art because 1)
you have a friend who is a musician (not many musicians in existence, as we
all know, so his opinion is to be revered) 2) You and he, commonly referred to
as "WE", came to some conclusions.  In fact, "WE" came to one conclusion, and
then "WE" came to a better conclusion 3) "WE" concluded that rock music has
barely changed since its humble beginning (no doubt after performing a series
of rigorous tests, consulting hundreds of authorities, and researching a
library full of books pertaining to the subject) 4) This conclusive conclusion
from a team of two was your "REASON WHY ROCK IS NOT ART" 5) "WE DECIDED" what
the difference between art and entertainment is (the age old debate can now
rest; how can we ever repay you two?) 6) "WE DECIDED" art has an aesthetic
goal while entertainment does not (again, many thanks).  7)"WE" were unable to
find the aesthetic goal of rock, "IN FACT WE AGREED" that there isn't one;
THEREFORE, it is not art".

"WE" looked and "WE" looked, but "WE" couldn't find an aesthetic goal in forty
plus years of the world's most popular music.  Well, I'm convinced.  Who
better than you and your musician friend, two rock music aficionados no doubt,
to conduct this unbiased search for rock's aesthetic goal.  I guess I'll have
to take YOUR word for it that rock music never had any such goal.  Thank God I
don't have to decide any of this for myself!!   Whew!!  Is everyone as
relieved as I am?  Can't we all pitch together for McGoo's consulting fee?  I
mean, he's conclusively proven the insignificance of rock music as an art
form.  I think we owe him a great debt.  Perhaps we can sell off all those
stupid Who albums we foolishly bought so we can get him a nice fruitbasket and
a tuning fork for his musician friend.  Thank goodness you're such a big
believer in leaps of logic.  God knows I never could have spanned the chasm
from personal opinion to Universal truth the way you have here.

>And (Emily's) 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.

Feedback silly?!  Them's fighting words, but given your bias WE'll let it
slide.  Rock is still "the same old crap" it was before Townshend.  So you
never liked it, and even though "Who's Next" could never have been
contemplated, conceptually or technically, in the days of "Johnny B. Goode",
it doesn't matter because you dismiss the entire genre as "crap" outright.
Again, why is it you are here?  See, I don't visit rap sites because I loath
rap and I wouldn't enjoy hearing more about rap nor would rappers enjoy
learning of my disdain for their music, ad nauseum.  But then, I'm funny like
that.

>> Art *is* art because I say.
>This cannot be so. 

That's funny.  I thought you and your buddy Stravinsky DECIDED that rock is
not art, all by yourselves.  Therefore, if rock is not art, because YOU
DECIDED its not art, then, in response, I CONCLUDE it is Art because I DECIDE
it is. 

>Simply because if art is art because you say so,
>what stops us from taking this one step further to saying a >cracker is a
cracker because I say so. 

Or you from saying Emily Dickinson is a major influence on Townshend because
you say so.  Or that rock has no aesthetic goal because you say so.  Hmmm, you
may have a point there.
 
>That is nice we all agree what a cracker is, but perhaps we >don't all agree.
Then some things are crackers to some
>and telephones to others.  

Actually, I think that's called mental illness.  Van Gogh suffered from mental
illness.  I wonder if that means he was just an entertainer?  Or was he a
telephone?  Or a cracker?

>As you can see, this would be quite a problem and is the reson >why we
actually have definitions.  Art no different than >anything else.

Well, people don't have endless debates on whether a saltine is a telephone.
But they will continue to endlessly debate the very definition of art.   Art
IS different from anything else.   A cracker is a cracker.  A phone is a
phone.  And art...well art is in the eye, ear, nose, and throat of the
beholder.  People can decide for themselves what constitutes artistic
expression for the very reason you yourself first gave.  Is there an aesthetic
goal?  I'll buy that definition.  But neither you nor anyone else is qualified
to determine for others if an art form does or does not have an aesthetic
goal.  And if you deem your opinion of art to be superior to that of others
you must still admit that it is nothing more nor less than your opinion.  One
of billions of equally valid opinions on what constitutes creative
achievement.

>> You mean like I'm too stupid to figure it out without >>several musicians?
How do you know *I* am not a >>musician?
>
>No, I just figured that the chances of you being a muscian are >so slim, that
I had a pretty good chance of assuming you >weren't.  Your insistence that
rock n'roll is great music also >tends to put me off.  No musician I have ever
met think rock is >any good, but that might just be my friends.

Again:  "I just figured" "I had a pretty good chance of assuming you weren't".
I figured?? I assumed??  How can you make statements based on nothing but
assumptions and then excuse them by saying "I just figured".  Plus, "no
musician (you) have ever met thinks rock is any good, but that might just be
(your) friends."  Another massive, sweeping generalization based on your vast
contact with the musical world, or at least the friends you have who can play
some kind of instrument.  Maybe it's just me, but have you ever heard of Buddy
Rich, or Branford Marsalis, or let's not forget Miles Davis who thought Jimi
Hendrix was a genius and has frequently acknowledged Hendrix's influence upon
his later work.  But then, Miles Davis may not be your friend, so perhaps you
didn't know that.  Or you may not consider Miles Davis a Real musician
(although he is regarded as one of this century's greatest by music scholars
far more educated than you or I).  But again, I understand that what is
important in this discussion is not the countless and varied opinions of
others, but your opinions alone (albeit with your friends' opinions thrown in
for good measure).

>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.  

Preposterous.  If anything, the difference in the music of the '64 Who as
compared to the '70 or '72 or '74 Who is startling.  The musical growth is
astonishing and certainly has an aesthetic goal weaving throughout, despite
your ridiculous assertions to the contrary (in my humble opinion that is).

>Art changes, and it has an aestetic goal.  Rock has neither.

Whatever you say, the road from "Tutti Frutti" to "A Day In The Life"
notwithstanding.

>Second, I must say that there is an
>audience for rock and there is an audience for poetry.  While >the two are
tangential, they are not even close to the same.  

Bullshit.  Poetry fans and rock fans are all people.  I, for one, enjoy both
poetry and rock music.  I am not alone.

>Poetry lovers, look to find out all about the influences of >their favorite
poets and what they changed.  Rock lovers tend >to ignore all suggestions that
there is anything better than >what they like.  

That is the biggest, most nonsensical generalization I've ever heard.  Poetry
people think.  Rock lovers don't.  Where the hell do you come up with this
crap!  I've got a few more for you:  Jews are all cheap.  Asians are all
brilliant.  Irish are all drunks.  Blacks are all lazy.  Women can't drive.
The Freemasons rule the Earth.  Yadda yadda yadda.

>Rock lovers are just people who can't love poetry.  

Excepting me and Bob Dylan and Pete Townshend and John Lennon and several
hundred million other people who seem to be able to juggle this elitist love
of poetry with this base lust for rock music.  I guess we're all just freaks
or something.

>Perhaps rock deserves its audience, and its audience deserves >rock. 

I heartily agree.  Long Live Rock.

>Sorry for being harsh, I was just telling the truth.

It wasn't so much harsh as illogical, biased, and unsupported by anything but
your own opinion.
As to telling the truth, well truth is a relative concept, and in your case it
would have to be.

>That's all I have

Thank God, but I doubt it.
-Leo

"Rock is dead they say.  Long live Rock!!"