Rock and Art

["Eames, Fred" <Fred.Eames@mail.house.gov>]

I'm not sure why anyone would think music, including rock, isn't an art,
as long as you have even a single person beyond its maker that
appreciates it as art.  A lot of modern music might suck, but it's still
art.  If it's not art, there's no other word in English to categorize
it.

As far as what rock music will last and what won't, it's hard to say.
First of all, what time period are we talking about?  Ten or twenty
years from now, or 200 years from now?  How many 18th century composers
can you name?  I'm not much of a classical music fan, so my list kind of
stops with Mozart.  Who would have predicted Van Gogh's influence on
20th century art when the guy only sold a single painting during his
lifetime?  Who would have predicted Tony Bennett playing to packed
houses of twentysomethings in the '90s?  A rebirth of swing music?

You could argue that art, including music, probably has a better chance
of enduring if it is recognized as influential on influential artists
who come after.  Look at Willie Dixon, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters,
Howlin' Wolf, and other blues artists and the influence they had on
rock.  They may not all be household names, but the music endures. You
could argue that sustained mass appeal ensures lasting popularity.  But
I'd be interested to know how many sales a new Bob Dylan release has
today, and he's still a rock icon.  You could just argue that if the
music is good, it will last.  Under that theory, My Generation and
Amazing Journey both have a great chance.

Somebody wrote (I'm paraphrasing) that they thought music would die if
people failed to live up to it.  Music isn't some obligation to live up
to or we'd all be damned for not living up to disco.  I'm not living up
to The Who - I just like their music a lot.