Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V5 #237

[Daswer@aol.com]

Brian wrote:

>There's an interesting article in today's The Times of London where a music

>critic reflects on Ray Davies' commission for an oratorio and again decries 

>rock stars feeling they have to write beyond the three-minute single.  One

>of his statements is that "Tommy" will soon be forgotten while "My

>Generation" will live forever.



>This is rather a sore point with me.  I feel that the basis of this is an

>ingrained prejudice that WORKING CLASS ROCK STARS SHOULD STAY IN THEIR

>PLACE.  I also think that this prejudice and its effect of limiting rock to

>three minutes and three chords is why rock is nearly dead today.  What are

>your thoughts?

I agree wholeheartedly!  I also agree with Alan who stated if Tommy and other
ambitious rock works are "forgotten it will be people who failed the music,
not the other way around".  Ms. Ledbetter wrote:  "It isn't a genre, or a
medium, or a 
format that makes something art - it is the artist."  Pete would agree: "It's
the singer not the song that makes the music move along".
The only thing that has become a "permanent fad" in rock music today is the
reverse snobbery which Brian has so aptly pointed out.  I think punk music was
an important movement in Rock history.  I think it pumped needed blood back
into an artform bloated with fat cats and pointless, meandering Opuses.  But
today all of the long forms of rock music, which The Who, Beatles, Kinks, and
others fought step by step to bring to us, are now and forever summarily
dismissed with the all incompassing put-down, "Pretentious".  I put the blame
at the feet of the audience as Alan stated.  I think it's easier to listen to
the quick single by the newest one-hit-then-history
band.  You don't have to think about it.  It's instant gratification, like a
candy bar.  Pop.  Pete and others tried to give us something more (while never
forgetting to crank out the "hits").  But you can't listen to the instrumental
"The Rock" for 2 minutes and 50 seconds, you can't change stations in the
middle of side two of Abbey Road without difficulty.  It's a full course, and
that takes time.  No eat and run.  I think Pete's philosophy about this aspect
of their music was always there, long before the operas.  The Who was never a
"backdrop" band with songs you could play while concentrating on something
else.  They demanded your attention.  I forget where Pete said this quote, but
paraphrased (insult to injury, I know) Pete was talking about the early gigs
where they were so loud that the audience was forced to listen whether they
wanted to or not.  Pete words were something like, there's no drinking or
dancing or chatting up the birds tonight, there's nothing but this terrific
roar.  Tonight, you get us and that's it!  I think that same philosophy helped
create Sell Out and Tommy and Quad.  Music that demanded and expected your
undivided attention.  Rock groups have stopped making these demands on
audiences.  They only give what's easily digested and today's audiences look
no further.  Crazy.
Final thought:  Where is the next great band?  Where are the next rock
"artists"?  The modern day Who, Beatles, Kinks.  Who will step forward to push
the envelope, whether timid audiences want them to or not?  I'm waiting!
--Leo