Rock Operas, etc.

[Marc/Carolyn Hurwitz <MHurwitz@compuserve.com>]

I just had to weigh in on this debate about rock music;
so far it's been fascinating.  First off, someone said that
punk destroyed rock operas and concept albums (or
something close to that--correct me if I'm wrong, please).
Well, as far as concept albums go, there are still plenty
of them out there.  The Artist Formerly.... has done a
number of them, as have some New Wave artists like
Joe Jackson, Elvis Costello, the Police and the like.
The albums nowadays tend to be more thematic rather
than story-oriented, but then again, so were records
like SGT. PEPPER.  As far as rock operas, I agree
that they're out of vogue at the moment; I suspect that's
because the folks who want to write rock operas head
for Broadway rather than the recording studio.  Paul
Simon recently wrote a musical, and of course Andrew
Lloyd Webber's still going strong.  However, I think
that ZEN ARCADE by Husker Du is a rock opera, isn't
it?  Thought I read somewhere that it was inspired by
QUADROPHENIA.  And it's hard to get more punk than
Husker Du.  Also, THE WALL by Punk Floyd (whoops,
Freudian slip there) was a #1 hit rock opera in 1979,
when punkdom was at its height.  Maybe folks out
there are just waiting for the right record.

Re Ray Davies writing symphonies or whatever:  I'll
be honest here.  Rock stars can write all the classical
pieces they'd like to, as long as they have the money
to produce them, but guys like Davies and McCartney
really don't have the kind of talents it takes to write
good "classical" music.  Their strength is their catchy
melodies, not their ability to write variations on themes
with inversions and fugues and arrange pieces for an
orchestra or string quartet or whatever and everything
else necessary for a classical work.  This has nothing to
do with whether they're working class or upper-class or
whatever; they just haven't been trained to do that kind
of composing.  And I think they'd be better off artistically
sticking with what they do best: rock and roll.

Someone said rock wasn't art.  Not true!  Rock is definitely
art, and I'd defend that definition until I dropped from
exhaustion.  You could say that rock isn't Art with a capital
A; that I'd agree with.  I think most art-rock bands suck
royally, particularly when they start thinking that they should
do something "better" than "just rock music" and screw
up their music with symphony orchestras and the like.
Rock and classical don't mix; they're two completely
different kinds of music, coming from different cultures
(African/folk/country vs. European) and with different
artistic achievements and aims.  Rock has been a rebel's
medium throughout its lifetime; it seeks to change things
for the better, or at least to point out society's failings.
Classical music doesn't have a social agenda; it exists
for the love of the music itself.  I'm sure there are some
exceptions both ways, but in general, I believe this
is true.  Anyway, I don't understand why people buy the
argument that "it's only rock and roll"; it's been so much
more than that throughout my life.  And groups like the
Who prove it in every song they sing.

Thank you for your time; now I'll climb down from my
soapbox.

--Carolyn
"There once was a note, listen!"