Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V5 #249

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>Reply-To: bmcgow01@wild.vill.edu
>To: "'TheWho@igtc.com'" <TheWho@igtc.com>
>Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V5 #249

Hmmm.  I haven't been getting all these messages.  You guys be careful 
how you hit the "reply" button.  Okay?


>Every single song written in 4/4 time (which contains all but two or 
three Who songs), can be sung to the melody of any other song written in 
4/4 (like "twinkle").  The fact that almost every rock is in 4/4, is one 
of the reasons I think it such a poor form of expression.

Technically, rock is 2/4, isn't it?


>For a while now, several of you have been "hiding behind" the argument 
that art is anything you say it is.  I have done my best to stay away 
from this, but since this seems to be going in no other direction, I 
feel I should just address it now.

We're getting in pretty deep when we try to define "art."  It's an 
extremely broad term in usage, and worse than that, open to 
interpretation.  It would be more reasonable to accept this fact, and 
then go on to discuss the type or quality of art.  

(As I understand my dictionary, art is anything that doesn't rely on the 
scientific method.  I'm not even sure that's right.  I suspect I could 
talk about the art of good science about as well as I could the art of 
Pete Townshend's songwriting.)


>And I have one more thing to say about the music vs. society debate.  
Take for instance Monet.  He was a painter who painted things, among 
them flowers.  Monet did not invent, or otherwise alter, flowers, he 
just depicted them.  Now take for instance Ms. Joplin.  She was a song
>writer/poet who wrote about social change.  She didn't change society, 
she just wrote about its changes.

Monet didn't attempt social commentary, though.  Try Picasso.  
"Guernica" and such.  He really meant to make a difference.

BTW, did anybody here read the TIME article a while back that listed "My 
Generation" as one of the pivotal events of the Twentieth Century?


>> So what was it that brought about the jazz and rock revolutions?
>I believe that were caused by the circumstances around them.  I will 
start with jazz, keep in mind that I only know the basics about music.  
In 1918, the greatest war the world had yet seen had ended,...Of course 
this all changed in '31, with the beginning of WWII, and '32, with the 
total onset of the world depression.  The 1920's is perhaps the most 
fascinating off all decades in US history, at least I think so.
>
>Rock was altogether a different story.  While a generation did clearly 
exist, it was not even close to as dramatic.  Plus it did not produce 
the kind of artistic golden age the 20's did....

Basically, it seems you've tied both these musical revolutions to the 
world wars.  That sounds right to me.  WWI exposed a lot of young 
American guys to an entirely different culture.  They brought home a 
bunch of new ideas from Europe (isn't that where Gershwin got his 
sound?).  The result was a mini-Renaissance.  Similar result after WWII, 
but not quite so marked.  Don't I recall some Pete Townshend interview 
where he said "My Generation" was response to a generation scarred by 
the war?  He set TOMMY in relation to WWII, as well.

Was there a war in Europe which generated the artistic and scientific 
advances at about the turn of the century?  Where did all that Russian 
music come from?  


>> Don McLean says it's a joke.  Still, lots of people have fun worrying 
with it.
>>
>Perhaps it is, he would know better than I.  But it still has some 
really interesting stuff in it.  I mean any time you can juxtapose 
Christ with Hamlet, you've got to appreciate that.

There are some websites with detailed efforts at interpretation, if you 
want to check it out.  


>> Retail sales is the best form of quality control ever invented.
>>
>Ouch...This hurts.  According to this, Shakespeare would be virtually
>ignored today, and William Dean Howells would be worshiped as the 
greatest American writer.

No, that's Stephen King, isn't it? ;)


>been behind the times where as poetry is often the first art form to 
mark the change into a new era.

Prose has replaced poetry in this, don't you think? <shrug> Or at least, 
it keeps pace.  What poet would you say heralded the rock generation?  
Ginsburg?  Or is the Beat generation too far back?  (I'm sure Mark is 
going to insist it's Dylan.)


>Same can said of music.  It seems that most people on this list are
>content with saying music is art because music is art.  Sounds like 
they are claiming it is worthy simply because it exists.

This is backward.  Music exists because it's a worthy art, and it's 
pretty well defined as such.  Otherwise, the effort would have died out 
eons ago.  You CAN argue about whether people on the fringes are 
actually producing music.  John Cage, maybe.  And what's that movement 
called where you do it with garbage can lids?


>> And my contention is Art can only be measured by its A) effect on the 
person experiencing it, & B) its influence. By this measure, music (and 
Rock music in particular) comes out the clear winner.
>>
>And my contentious is that one cannot measure in this totally personal 
manner.  I also contend that rock music has had only marginal influence 
on anything, except the size of our wallets.  
>and that is just not true.

I've been thinking about research articles for Karyn, so I have a 
comment here.  I don't know if rock music is a cause or an effect, but 
it IS indication of a difference in how people are relating to the 
world.  There are curious folk out there who are working to define this.

First of all, rock is a very broad genre.  It includes hard rock, pop, 
soft rock, heavy metal, etc. etc., plus cross-genre stuff where it's 
mixed with jazz or country or blues.  In order to make a statement about 
its influence, you'd have to address at least some of these categories, 
because they can be quite different. 

The buzz in music education these days is that some types of music can 
apparently affect both long and short term IQ and the spacial and 
mathematical abilities of developing children.  I haven't investigated 
this in detail, but it seemed to me that the researchers didn't define 
what characteristics of music actually did this. They defined their 
music as "classical" or "upbeat dance tunes," which I thought seemed 
biased on their part.  Still, it's not hard to figure out what's what 
when you listen to the stuff.

Somehow I suspect Wagner isn't likely to contribute as much as Mozart to 
math ability.  And I don't think The Who is going to contribute as much 
as Townshend solo.  In other words, some types of music seem to stay in 
the background and only supply a gentle stimulus to the brain that helps 
it work.  Others are very absorbing and tie up large chunks of the 
brain--they're meant to be listened to.  People who are addicted to this 
type music are unlikely to be thinking a lot.

This IS oversimplifying, of course.  There's no telling if these people 
would think even if they weren't listening to loud, highly absorbing 
music.  And there's also a question of whether complexity makes any 
difference.  I'd expect The Who's music would be comparable to Wagner in 
any contest, but likely the average heavy metal album wouldn't.  
Comments from anybody else?

keets


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com