Re: Are we musical snobs?

["Kevin Winn" <kwinn@chrome.com>]

I'm somewhere in the middle of Jeff and Ian - I agree that rock has 
developed at an accelerated rate than any previous format.  I also agree 
that it is partially due to the willingness of certain individuals to come 
forth and make their statements.

But I must add that both jazz and rock suffered from the same thing that I 
believe ended their Golden Eras: Marketing.

It was in the early 60's that jazz began to be packaged and sold as a 
commodity.  The same thing with rock music in the mid 70's.  It seems to me 
that as soon as people get the idea that they can make money from art, they 
begin to try to conform the art to marketing principles (like putting out X 
number of albums per year, each one containing at least two songs that are 
composed specifically to be "hits," or large corporations sponsoring 
concert tours).

It seems a constant and consistent gripe of artists is that the record 
companies are trying to tell them what to do.  I think that's why new bands 
tend to generate more response.  They are (and, of course, I'm NOT talking 
about the Partridge Family or Madonna here - they're products of nothing 
more than greed) less likely to respect the "authority" of the business.  
This rebellious nature is something rock music has always prided itself on. 
 Hence "punk" music was a success because it flipped two fingers to the 
established rock music institution (which was really coming into its own as 
a profit generating venture), as well as because there was just some great 
artistic statements made.

As soon as a rock musician wearily makes the inevitable statement "I am an 
enterTAINer" then I usually start looking for the crap to begin flowing.  
This statement confirms that they have:

1)  Made enough money so they're not worried about eating anymore
2)  Accepted their role as a commodity and not an artist
3)  Listened to their ego-puffers so much they begin to believe their own 
shit don't stink (the big hair and weird suits usually start showing up at 
about this time)

Case In Point: Rod Stewart.
Listen to "Every Picture Tells A Story" and tell me this guy didn't have 
everything he needed to becaome a legend in rock.  A great band, a smoking 
voice, and genre comparable to the Stones' Exile on Main Street/Sticky 
Fingers era.  But he ended up as little more than a parody of himself.

I think what draws us to the Who is that Pete lasted longer than most when 
it came to retaining his artistic integrity.  While his original 
motivations may have been his nose and getting laid, it very quickly became 
a lot more than that.  And until Moon died, that integrity (however painful 
for him) remained the primary focus of what he was doing.  John Lennon is 
another example of an artist who retained his integrity far longer than 
most.  Neil Young is another.


It now seems okay for those that have "strayed" off into the land of 
"Entertainment" to try to reclaim their integrity, with varying degrees of 
success.  Page/Plant, Clapton and Steve Winwood come to mind immediately.  
I tend towards giving another chance to the artists that once turned me 
inside-out.  I guess that I feel that they've known both sides of the 
matter, and finally figgered out that it's better to make medium money 
doing what you really want than to make a ton of money doing something you 
despise.  I'm skeptical of new bands because they seem only concerned with 
getting a video running on MTV and making a shitload of money so that they 
don't ever have to grow up and be responsible people, which (ironically) 
was summed up quite nicely in the most famous PT line of all:

"hope I die before I get old..."


Now that I have completely encircled myself, I hereby simply pronounce 
myself Cynical To Beat All Hell...


OK,
KLW