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

Re: Rock is dead, they say...THIS ROCK AIN'T DEAD



A response to Brian McGoo's recent post. 

>I think you missed my point on the Dickinson thing, so I will try to clear
it up.
I think you are a bit inconsistent on your "clearification".  

>Ms. Dickinson's poetry, while it may not "touch" you in the same way
>as Townshend's, is better.  
It doesn't matter.  You are comparing the work of two different people
*and* two different artists.  Can you compare the work of Pete with his
contemporary's, like Jimi Hendrix or The Monkeys...or even the work of an
current music artist, like Pearl Jam, Garth Brooks or even Yo-yo Ma?

While your delineation of Dickinson and Townshend's work (ie: both write
poetry) Pete did more than this.  He didn't just write trite song lyrics,
he wrote songs, in addition to tremendous linear projects…like, Quad,
Tommy, Lifehouse…White City, Iron Man…etc.

Do you think it is fair to compare Whitman with Dickinson or for that
matter, Hemmingway, etc?  What is the point?  If you are going to do this,
you may as well compare the work of an Eddie Van Halen's guitar solo with
Pete's proper use of grammer, or Picasso's form with Pete's storyline
treaments, or Jean-Paul Sartre…or Albert Einstein…or *even* a name you
brought up, Hitler.  You can't compare apples to oranges!  We are
discussing art here.  Art is entirely *too* subjective and personal to be
analyzed in such a way.

The biggest problem I have with your stance is that you are comparing the
poety of an  American *poet*, Emily Dickinson, from the mid-1800's -- with
-- popular lyrics of an English man, Pete Townshend, who was, by trade a
songwriter, in the late 1900's!

>Townshend, when compared to Dickinson, is little more than an
>amateur.  
Amateur what….writer, poet, artist, philosopher, musician, songwriter,
composer….?

>I think I have aptly demonstrated that Dickinson is a superior poet to
Townshend,
>techinically at least.  
Yes, you have a point that "technically" Dickinson is a "better" writer,
there is no way this  is going to win any points.  You can't compare art to
*anything*, especially to another piece of art.  Perhaps if Emily wrote
popular songs you *might* have "a leg to stand on", but even if that was
the case why even do such a thing?  

>But doubt still remains as to which one would win a poetry contest.
Art is not a contest!  This kind of discussion to me sounds like those
"dialogs" you read on high school bathrooms, "Motley Crue is #1".

>Townshend's songs and he does not have any of the symbolism or masterful 
>metaphores of Dickinson.
>
>He does not posses a mastery of the language that Dickinson clearly has.  
You might be right, but I can't accept this.  I don't care.  If you are
*still* comparing *anything* it doesn't matter!

I must say I find fault and immediately dismiss those recent post by people
who insist on talking about Keith Moon's ability as a drummer (which I
immediately delete).  There is almost no room for such silly discussions
here.  I found it really refreshing when a recent post contained a great
quote from Keith himself, saying [paraphrasing] "I'm the best Keith
Moon-type drummer".  He was a 100% right.  Who cares if he's "as good" as
Neil Pert, John Bonham or Tito Puente.  It doesn't matter.

>Of course he did get the last laugh, Dickinson, too, never saw a cent for
her words.
>Townshend has been popularly accepted in his lifetime
What exactly is your point here?  Is it suppose to be Whitman or
Dickinson's fault for Pete's success?

>When I think of art, I think of something that progresses as the artist
grows.
>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.
Again, this is your own *very* subjective opinion.  If you want *my*
subjective opinion, I think your definition of art is pretty narrow.  If
you want to encompass an evolution of an artist's artwork with their
respective medium, don't you think you should refine your definition to
reflect something like "high-art" or "great art" or some such nomenclature.

>Hitler failed in his attempt to create a master race, but I wouldn't call
him an artist.
Oh, but he was a *master* artist.  His medium was rhetoric and he was a
genius in using it.  How else could he persuaded an entire country to adopt
his master race paradigm.  This does not mean I endorse what he did.
Certainly, art does not have to be popular to considered "good".

>While you seem disinterested in Dickinson you may be interested in her
definition
>of poetry
Nope, not interested.  We aren't here to talk about Dickinson and poetry.
Take your case to a Dickinson discussion group.

>Her metaphores were unmatchable and her words make me shiver
>with delight.  
I don't care.  Go learn to spell "metaphores".  Go "shiver" on another list.

> > I enjoy The Who.  But I enjoy them for what they are, entertainment.
I hate to burst your bubble, but essentially so, is Emily…. 

Seriously, while you make a nice critical response with some good points,
there can be no basis for such a subjective discipline.  But, the primary
basis for your argument is formed on varying degrees (or lack of, in some
cases) taste.

Don't take this as a personal attack.  I got a little out of line at the
end, simply to make a point.  

Finally, you do have a case.  I am actually on your side.   I believe our
stance does demonstrate your ability to recognize fine art and
discriminating taste.  But there is no such thing as taste when you are
discussing art…as per the example of Hitler.

No, I don't believe Pete is better than Emily, quite the contrary.   I just
thought I would have you reconsider your stance.  The only conclusion when
comparing art is that it is different:  X is different than Y.  Again, the
only reason for me writing is that I find fault with your argument.

Thanks for the space.

Regards.