Re: Uppitty Rock Stars

[Brian Steven Cady <cadyb@mindspring.com>]

At 02:01 PM 10/11/98 -0400, McGoo wrote:
>Rock is not, never was,
>and never will be art.  Rock music is essentially just a very long lasting
>fad.  All you have to do to be a rock star is wear strange clothes, scream a
>lot and make loud noise.  Quality control is something that rock never
had.  In
>fact rock is perhaps the greatest example of how superficial Western culture
>is.  There have been very few people who actually tried to turn rock into
>something more than it was (Pete Townshend, Frank Zappa and maybe someone
>else), but they ended up failing because the public refused to accept that
rock
>was not already the pinnacle of artistic endeavors.  Essentially, rock is
>nothing more than what it is.  It is a form a mass entertainment.  It is not
>art, it is not capable of being art.

But here's the question that's being begged.  Why is rock this way?
Because the fans and critics wouldn't let it be anything more and because
almost all rock musicians weren't capable of anything more, or because the
form of rock music itself meant it couldn't be more?  Was it doomed the
moment it left the cradle or was there another path that just wasn't followed?

The latter is what I believe.  Pete was pointing the way to something
greater but no one would follow him.  Instead punk, which despite The Clash
and The Jam, turned into the biggest reactionary movement in rock, took
over the critical plaudits and returned rock to three-chords and no rock
operas ever!

			-Brian in Atlanta