art

[Brian <bmcgow01@wild.vill.edu>]

Well, you asked, so I have to tell.  The reason rock is dead today, is
because
it is the same exact thing today as it was forty years ago.  The
drummers play
the same patterns, the guitarists play the same cords and the singers
sing
about the same things.  Rock is dead because very few rock stars are
actually
musicians.  This is not to say that they cannot play an instrument well,
it is
to say that they have a distinct lack of creativity.  Rock is not, never
was,
and never will be art.  Rock music is essentially just a very long
lasting
fad.  All you have to do to be a rock star is wear strange clothes,
scream a
lot and make loud noise.  Quality control is something that rock never
had.  In
fact rock is perhaps the greatest example of how superficial Western
culture
is.  There have been very few people who actually tried to turn rock
into
something more than it was (Pete Townshend, Frank Zappa and maybe
someone
else), but they ended up failing because the public refused to accept
that rock
was not already the pinnacle of artistic endeavors.  Essentially, rock
is
nothing more than what it is.  It is a form a mass entertainment.  It is
not
art, it is not capable of being art.

As far as I am concerned, the reporter has the right idea.  He knows
what rock
is, and he is probably right about Tommy being forgotton long before My
Generation.  In my opinion, rock died with the rise of the Beatles.

It is critical that we recognize things for what they are.  Flies are
bugs, baseballs are round and The Who are entertainers.  They are a
group of people who make a lot of noise that people like to listen to.
Pete Townshend is a man who had big dreams, but lacked the ability and
support to turn them into reality, John Entwistle is a very good
bassist, Roger Daltrey is a singer who can scream a few notes very
effectively and Keith Moon was very good at pounding drums.

If you want to call these people artists, they should be insulted.  I
say this because, if they are artists, they peaked well after their
time.  Emily Dickinson successfully did everything with words that
Townshend was not able to do.  Buddy Rich was several times better as a
drummer than Moon could ever have hoped to have been.  And I think we
can all agree that better than average singers are, and always have
been, a dime a dozen.  The only one that can claim to be something truly
special is Entwistle.  I have never heard a better bassist, but that is
where his claim ends.  He is simply an average lyricist, and his other
musical skills are also average.

Now for the disclaimer.  I enjoy The Who.  But I enjoy them for what
they are, entertainment.  I guess someone can claim that they are
artists who produce art.  But if you are interested in lyrics, try a
poem by Dickinson.  They are deeper, have more meaning and are generally
better than a Townshend song.  If you are interested in good music, try
listening to Stravinsky.  He is just a better musician.  They are
artists, The Who are entertainers.

I'm going on vacation so you'll have to give me a week before I can
defend myself.

-McGoo