Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V5 #239

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

At 01:28 AM 10/18/98 -0500, Alan wrote:
>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.

I'll try to explain more.  I'm convinced that the Who's music has the
quality of great art but it's a little difficult to judge when you're close
up to its creation in both time and culture.  And I have to admit that even
100 years doesn't settle it.  I recently read vociferous arguments about
whether Harriet Beecher Stowe was an artist and her book "Uncle Tom's
Cabin" came out what, 140 years ago?

In the level of great art, you can only be absolutely sure over great
periods of time.  Few (except for the late G.B. Shaw) would now argue that
Shakespeare wasn't a great artist.  However, in the early Restoration era
(late 1600's) people were still in doubt, thinking that he too was "just an
entertainer."

So do we love The Who becuase they meant so much to our generation or can
they speak to the next and the one after that?  I think they can and the
response of the young people on this list is what gives me hope.

				-Brian in Atlanta