Re: Rock is dead, they say

[Brian <bmcgow01@wild.vill.edu>]

I have returned from vacation; therfore, I shall respond to some of my detractors,
and ignore the rest.


> > Pete Townshend is a man who had big dreams, but lacked the ability and
> > support to turn them into reality
>
> You're forgetting that his failures were bigger than most people's
> successes.

This means little, as it is true of many people.  Hitler failed in his attempt to
create a master race, but I wouldn't call him an artist.

> > Now for the disclaimer.  I enjoy The Who.  But I enjoy them for what
> > they are, entertainment.
>
> I think that's a shame, because obviously you've missed the best part.
> But keep listening and perhaps you'll get it.

> > artists who produce art.  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.
>
> Art can only be measured by how it affects the person who views it.
> Townshend's work reaches me FAR more than Dickinson's work. Townshend's
> words are more relevent to MY life than anything she ever wrote.
> Sorry, but you lose on this one.

Only one way to respond to this one:  I think that's a shame, because obviously
you've missed the best part.  But keep reading and perhaps you'll get it.

I think you missed my point on the Dickinson thing, so I will try to clear it up.

First Axiom:  Song lyrics are a form of poetry.
Second Axiom:  Mr. Townshend wrote song lyrics (i.e. poetry).
Third Axiom:  Ms. Dickinson also wrote poetry.

Conclusion:  Ms. Dickinson's poetry, while it may not "touch" you in the same way
as Townshend's, is better.  I have spent far too long analizing Townshend's songs
and he does not have any of the symbolism or masterful metaphores of Dickinson.
His poetry, almost without exception does not even attempt to vary from the
crudest structures.  He does not posses a mastery of the language that Dickinson
clearly has.  His songs rarely mean anything other than what appears on the
surface, where as Dickinson's often have several levels of meaning.

I think I have aptly demonstrated that Dickinson is a superior poet to Townshend,
techinically at least.  But doubt still remains as to which one would win a poetry
contest.

I must now confess that Dickinson was perhaps a poor example to use here, because
she does not write the same type of poetry that Townshend does, so I will continue
this discussion with another poet we are all familliar with:  Walt Whitman.

Whitman writes in a narravtive form, which is the same Townshend almost always
uses.  Whitman also appeals to emotions, another Townshend trait.  And perhaps
most importantly they both have the same sense of their importance.  To the best
of my knowledge, Townshend was privately convinced that he was the savior of rock
and roll; this was exactly what Whitman thought he was to American poetry.  And
for those of you who care, Whitman was almost certainly homosexual, and a lot of
his poetry reflects this.

We then run into areas where they differ:  Whitman was happy to throw ALL the
literary conventions of his day out the window (something Dickinson did too),
while Townshend did this to an extremely limited degree, he was far more of a
conformist than Whitman.  Townshend has been popularly accepted in his lifetime,
while Whitman was pretty much ignored during his.  And Townshend got rich off his
poetry while Whitman made a meager salary as a newspaper reporter.

With that having been said about Whitman vs. Townshend, keep in mind that all the
Dickinson vs. Townshend technicalities apply in this case too (or: Whitman too, is
a better technical poet than Townshend).

I must also continue the string of confessions by confessing that I do not like
Whitman, but I love Dickinson.

When I think of art, I think of something that progresses as the artist grows.
Dickinson and Whitman's poetry both progress into new, unexplored areas as they
got older.  Dickinson tried writing narratives for a little while (summer of 1862
if you care), but quickly relized that her genius lay elsewhere.  Whitman wrote
seven different versions of _Leaves of Grass_ and each was a distinct improvement
over the other.  On the other hand Townshend's poetry is identical, in every way
except subject matter, today compared to thirty-five years ago.  This is not
progress, to me this is not art.

While you seem disinterested in Dickinson, you may be interested in her definition
of poetry:  "If I read a book and it makes my body so cold no fire can warm me, I
know that is poetry.  If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken
off, I know that is poetry.  These are the only ways I know it.  Is there another
way?"

When Dickinson was at her best (as in  "In Winter in my Room"), her subject was
one with her form.  Her metaphores were unmatchable and her words make me shiver
with delight.  Townshend, when compared to Dickinson, is little more than an
amateur.  Of course he did get the last laugh, Dickinson, too, never saw a cent
for her words.

-McGoo