Rock/art

[Lucas Bleicher <bleicher@who.net>]

I wrote:
> Well, you said your
> musician friend told you
> that music didn't evolve very much.

Brian wrote:
> No, I said ROCK didn't evolve.  Hence, a reason it is not art.  Don't
> put words in my mouth, or twist my words to fit your agenda.

Well, I wrote a particularly long e-mail and you just quote this?
Anyway, here's what you wrote in digest #252:
> 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.

Sorry, maybe I just got things wrong. Anyway, let me continue. You also
said:

> Why Rock is not art:  A)It has no aesthetic goal.  B)The music has no
> progression.

Well, I think the problem is that you don't know much about the music
that was created in this half of the century. I can notice this by the
following comments:

> Rock is the same music today that it was in 1958.  The drummer plays the
> same pattern,

Oh, well... Have you ever heard about a guy named Bill Bruford? Listen
to him on King Crimson or UK. Then, if you still think that the drummer
plays the same pattern, then I think there's something wrong with your
ears...

> the guitarist plays the same cords

First listen to any of those 12-bar songs from the 50's. Then listen to
Gentle Giant's Octopus album. If you think it's the same chords, go to a
doctor right now.

> and the singer sings about the same damn things.

Again, listen to any "car-girls-beach" song from the 50's and then
listen to Peter Gabriel on Genesis. I don't know if you were referring
to vocals instead of lyrics, if so, check out Annie Haslam from
Renaissance. In any case, if you still think it's the same from the 50's
so... blah, you know the rest...

> There have been a couple of people who sought to change this (Mr. Townshend, Mr. Zappa), but they ultimately
> failed.

Well, what I have to say is that Townshend and Zappa are the only ones
that you know. We just need to look for them.

> Their dreams of turning rock into a viable artistic medium died with their careers.  As I said before, rock > lost all chance of becoming an artistic medium when The Beatles appeared.

Well, fortunately you are wrong. The only problem is that you never
looked for art on what was recently done in music (60's-now), and I can
understand it pretty well. But I care to do it.

See ya.
Lucas Bleicher