Rock is dead, they say

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> the problem with rock opera's is that they limit the subject of the songs;

Eric:

I'd say that depends on who's writing it. It can just as easily be an
asset. It gives the writer a chance to develop the story and characters.

> Having said that, my band is about to record, adn I've arrange a bunch of
> unrealted songs so they do tell a story if you want one. It'll probably be
> clearer than Tommy or the mighty Quad (although not better).

If you say so, but I found both to be crystal clear. Now if you're
talking about THE WALL...

> As for music being dead, "commercial conformity" hasn't killed those
> bands that don't conform.

I think this is a factor, but not THE reason. The main reason IMHO is
simple enough: the format has been taken as far as it can be, repeated
to death, and is still being repeated today. The absolute best thing a
new band can hope for is an interesting interpretation, because Rock
musicians have explored pretty much every avenue conceivable by humans.
For instance, Pearl Jam is most likely the best live band out there
today...but what have they done that hadn't been done by 1975? Ditto
with Widespread Panic, another contender. Etc.

> away from the Who.  Ray Davies is probably bitter that the Who can pull off
> a stadium tour of Tommy almost 20 years after its release.  Obviously, it
> was not soon forgotten.

Mike:

I must disagree with you here. I think that while The Kinks might not
stand up total output to total output with The Who (because they've made
at least 3 times as many albums), they certainly have made as much music
in the same league as our favorite band. I can cite examples if you
wish. The song Days is easily as moving as any song by Pete, for
example.

> The reason why the Kinks never built a large core audience which would fill
> stadiums for 30 years is because they did not have much success with

Not true. One reason is they were banned from the US during the years in
which The Who built their fan base, another their label didn't promote
them worth a shit during the same period. By the time (1969) they were
able to tour here again, The Who had claimed the territory.
The main difference is Davies tends to look at something from the
outside, whereas Townshend tends to write from the inside of the
character or situation. Townshend is more "epic," and Davies more
down-to-Earth.

> to say that they have a distinct lack of creativity.  Rock is not, never
> was,
> and never will be art.

Brian:

Just because it's limited, doesn't mean it's not Art. It is and always
shall be. The needs of the many...wait a minute...

> Pete Townshend is a man who had big dreams, but lacked the ability and
> support to turn them into reality

You're forgetting that his failures were bigger than most people's
successes.

> John Entwistle is a very good bassist

He's the BEST, so far.

> Roger Daltrey is a singer who can scream a few notes very effectively

Uh...he can control his screams in a way no one else can, just as
Townshend could control his feedback. Together, and with the others,
they add up to the greatest Pure Rock Entertainment to date. That's
their performance. In regard to the music Pete Townshend wrote, it is
indeed Art by any standard. And damned good Art, too.

> and Keith Moon was very good at pounding drums.

Yeah...again, the best. So far.

> Townshend was not able to do.  Buddy Rich was several times better as a
> drummer than Moon could ever have hoped to have been.

Not a chance. Moon was a natural genius; Rich is a technical drummer.

> Now for the disclaimer.  I enjoy The Who.  But I enjoy them for what
> they are, entertainment.

I think that's a shame, because obviously you've missed the best part.
But keep listening and perhaps you'll get it.

> 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.

Art can only be measured by how it affects the person who views it.
Townshend's work reaches me FAR more than Dickinson's work. Townshend's
words are more relevent to MY life than anything she ever wrote.
Sorry, but you lose on this one.

> If you are interested in good music, try
> listening to Stravinsky.  He is just a better musician.

It's not nearly as good, in fact it rather bores me. (yawn) Sorry.

> than story-oriented, but then again, so were records like SGT. PEPPER.

Carolyn:

SP was a concept album only in regard to the sound. It was originally
conceived as an album about their childhood, but that fell apart rather
quickly and it is no more than a group of songs which sound similar and
it has one song reprised.

>  Are you so absolutely sure that anyone can be a rock star ? Simply by 
>  wearing weird clothes and shouting down a microphone? Man if that's all you
>  gotta do then maybe I should try this ! 

Derick:

"Just get an electric guitar/And take some time and learn how to
play/And if your hair's combed right and your pants are tight/It's gonna
be alright..."
                            Roger McGuinn, So You Want To Be A Rock N
Roll Star

-- 

 "You take the guns...I'll keep the women."
             what David Koresh should have said

                      Cheers                ML