[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V5 #239



Hm, lots to talk about this time, I'll consolidate this all into one post:

>Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:15:46 EDT
>From: Daswer@aol.com
>Subject: Re:  The Who Mailing List Digest V5 #237
>
>>Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:02:18 -0400
>From: "Eames, Fred" <Fred.Eames@mail.house.gov>
>Subject: Rock and Art
>
>I'm not sure why anyone would think music, including rock, isn't an art,
>as long as you have even a single person beyond its maker that
>appreciates it as art.  A lot of modern music might suck, but it's still
>art.  If it's not art, there's no other word in English to categorize
>it.

I agree.  It might be bad art or good art, but it's art.

>Somebody wrote (I'm paraphrasing) that they thought music would die if
>people failed to live up to it.  Music isn't some obligation to live up
>to or we'd all be damned for not living up to disco.  I'm not living up
>to The Who - I just like their music a lot.

That was me, but I'd like to clarify here.  I said (paraphrased) that if
**Tommy** were forgotten (more dramatically, died) it would be because
people failed to respond to the potential value it contains, not that the
music (again, **Tommy**) were somehow lacking or substandard.  I was not
saying that any random piece of music demands that we live up to it --
indeed, most music contains no such challenge.

>Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:32:12 -0500 (EST)
>From: William Spencer Watson <wswatson@indiana.edu>
>Subject: Andy Neill's Who book
>
>Hello Whofans,
>
>Anyone know how to get the Andy Neill book with dollars instead of pounds?
>
>Bill

Find out how much it is in pounds, multiply by 1.7 to get dollars, and send
cash. Remember to add on for postage and something for Andy's trouble in
getting your dollars changed into something he can spend in his local.


>Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:50:18 -0400
>From: Brian <bmcgow01@wild.vill.edu>
>Subject: art
>
>Well, you asked, so I have to tell.  The reason rock is dead today, is
>because
>it is the same exact thing today as it was forty years ago.  The
>drummers play
>the same patterns, the guitarists play the same cords and the singers
>sing
>about the same things.

It's hard to say you're wrong, but Pete made a brilliant career based on
the same three chords that have been around for hundreds of years.

>it is
>to say that they have a distinct lack of creativity.

This is probably nearer the mark.

>  Rock is not, never
>was,
>and never will be art.

I'll argue all day that it IS art.  It may be bad or good but anytime
someone gets up in front of an audience and plays it's art.

>Rock music is essentially just a very long
>lasting
>fad.

You're on shaky ground there.  Art history is full of trends and movements
that started out as fads.  As communications progress, the length of time
needed to move across that ill-defined line from fad to trend to movement
will become shorter, but you seem to be judging whether or not a genre of
human endeavor is art based on how long other humans keep producing pieces
in that genre.  Art is independent  of time.

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.

Ask Pete...he said himself THe Who had no quality, and tried to avoid it :-).

In
>fact rock is perhaps the greatest example of how superficial Western
>culture
>is.

Given that we know your opinion of Western culture, how do you feel about
Western science that gives us the medium through which we're having this
conversation?  Is the Internet, this conversation, and thus ultimately your
own post also superficial?  Or is it only Western _culture_ that is
superficial, while its science, philosophy, etc. are deep?

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.

Maybe they failed in your house.  Not mine.

>Essentially, rock
>is
>nothing more than what it is.

And art, is, um, more than what it is?

>It is a form a mass entertainment.  It is
>not
>art, it is not capable of being art.

You're confusing "art" with "good art".  I won't insult you by listing all
the forms of art out there, but any endeavor in any of the areas is art,
then we proceed to the judging of it, which is a different horse.

>As far as I am concerned, the reporter has the right idea.  He knows
>what rock
>is, and he is probably right about Tommy being forgotton long before My
>Generation.  In my opinion, rock died with the rise of the Beatles.

You're undercutting your own argument.  If rock died with The Beatles,
you've been spending a lot of time and energy railing against something
that's 30 years in the ground, while saying nothing about the music created
since, say, 1969.

>It is critical that we recognize things for what they are.  Flies are
>bugs, baseballs are round and The Who are entertainers.  They are a
>group of people who make a lot of noise that people like to listen to.

So is an orchestra.  And your point is...?

Art is a joint product of, an interaction between, the performer and the
audience.  You should think about WHY people like to listen to the "noise".
What's the difference between Pete tearing up a guitar at 120 db and a
simple 10-minute broadcast of white noise at 120 db?  or between Pete
playing a melody and tearing up a guitar, both at 120 db?

>Pete Townshend is a man who had big dreams, but lacked the ability and
>support to turn them into reality,

Some of his dreams (the Lifehouse journey) didn't happen, others (fame) did.

> John Entwistle is a very good
>bassist,

You seem to clamp a lid on your appreciation beyond a certain level.  There
is a difference between being "very good" being world-class, which is what
John is.

>Roger Daltrey is a singer who can scream a few notes very
>effectively and Keith Moon was very good at pounding drums.

Your understatements are patronizing and insulting.  It makes me wonder
what, if anything, you would admit to being impressed by.

>If you want to call these people artists, they should be insulted

You insist we should see things as they are, and I agree.  "These people"
are musicians, hence artists.

>I
>say this because, if they are artists, they peaked well after their
>time.

Theyr'e not artists, and should be insulted if they are called artists, but
if they are artists, they peaked after their time?  You're becoming
incoherent.

>Emily Dickinson successfully did everything with words that
>Townshend was not able to do.  Buddy Rich was several times better as a
>drummer than Moon could ever have hoped to have been.  And I think we
>can all agree that better than average singers are, and always have
>been, a dime a dozen.

ED and BR did different things with words and drums than did PT and KM.  I
see no point in arguing the merits of The Who's music on a Who list.

The only one that can claim to be something truly
>special is Entwistle.  I have never heard a better bassist, but that is
>where his claim ends.

I think John's claims are a bit higher than being the best bassist you have
ever heard.

>  He is simply an average lyricist, and his other
>musical skills are also average.

He probably can't break par on a golf course and he'll never win a
road-rally car race (he doesn't have a driver's license).  Again, this bent
for smearing greatness.

>Now for the disclaimer.  I enjoy The Who.

Well, bully.  By this time, you've made it sound like your enjoyment is
about on the same level as watching a novice juggler on a street corner.

But I enjoy them for what
>they are, entertainment.  I guess someone can claim that they are
>artists who produce art.

You may call me Mr. Someone.

>But if you are interested in lyrics, try a
>poem by Dickinson.  They are deeper, have more meaning and are generally
>better than a Townshend song.  If you are interested in good music, try
>listening to Stravinsky.  He is just a better musician.  They are
>artists, The Who are entertainers.

De gustibus non disputandum.  I've read Dickinson and heard Stravinsky
(admittedly, not much of each).  I can't argue you into liking The Who
better than D or S, but once again, every musician in The Who _is_ an
artist.  Apparently  Dickinson and Stravinsky excel in aspects of letters
and musicianship you value more highly than the aspects in which Townshend
excels, while it's just the reverse with me.

>I'm going on vacation so you'll have to give me a week before I can
>defend myself.

OK.  Clock's running.



>Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:47:48 -0400
>From: Brian Steven Cady <cadyb@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: art

>Ultimately only one thing distinguishes art from trash (not entertainment;
>entertainment can be art) and that is time.  If one hundred years from now
>people still listen to The Who and it moves them, it's art.  If they hear
>them and go "what was that all about?" it's trash.

I've got to disagree with this aspect of Brian's excellent post.  Following
McGoo's injunction to see things as they are, I don't believe that a piece
of music (for example) exists in some limbo state for a century, then is
declared "art" or "trash" retrospectively.  Art is art, and music is art
from its inception.  Great art (as opposed to bad art) speaks to the
universal in the human condition, and thus will last longer (be remembered
longer).  The interesting thing is that really good art can actually change
the people who observe it, and thus help to bring about its own
preservation.



>Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:08:13 -0400
>From: Marc/Carolyn Hurwitz <MHurwitz@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Rock Operas, etc.
>
>Someone said rock wasn't art.  Not true!  Rock is definitely
>art, and I'd defend that definition until I dropped from
>exhaustion.

That's not a definition...in fact, I'm hampered by not having come up yet
with a definition...but I'm glad to see you agree that whatever the
definition, it would have to include rock.

>You could say that rock isn't Art with a capital
>A; that I'd agree with.

Rather than get into "art" vs. Art", it's better to talk about good vs. bad
art.

>I think most art-rock bands suck
>royally, particularly when they start thinking that they should
>do something "better" than "just rock music" and screw
>up their music with symphony orchestras and the like.
>Rock and classical don't mix; they're two completely
>different kinds of music, coming from different cultures
>(African/folk/country vs. European) and with different
>artistic achievements and aims.

It can go either way.  I thought the Daltrey Sings Townshend Carnegie Hall
shows were quite moving; it felt like hearing in reality the majesty I'd
heard in my imagination to The Who's music all these years.  OTOH, "Who's
Serious" is a real mistake, if you haven't heard it yet...an example of
emasculating rock with classical instrumentation.

>Rock has been a rebel's
>medium throughout its lifetime; it seeks to change things
>for the better, or at least to point out society's failings.
>Classical music doesn't have a social agenda; it exists
>for the love of the music itself.

Oh my...classical can be every bit as rebellious as rock with a clear
social agenda...Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and Lizst were all considered
outrageous or scandalous in their time.  "The Rites of Spring" provoked
riots in the audience when it was premiered early this century.  The
division line is between music (or art in general) that pushes the limits
of what is considered socially acceptable and art that does not -- not
between art produced in the last 50 years and art produced before that time.

I'm sure there are some
>exceptions both ways, but in general, I believe this
>is true.  Anyway, I don't understand why people buy the
>argument that "it's only rock and roll"; it's been so much
>more than that throughout my life.

Those who buy that argument don't get out of rock what you (and I) do.  I
can only hope they get it out of something because life's pretty damn bleak
without the emotional fuel art provides.

Alan
Be sure to read _McKendree: A Burning Novel of Murder and Revenge_
by Douglas Hirt, ISBN 0-8439-4184-7  (available at www.amazon.com)