Innovation, anyone?

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

>You're right that it's likely to continue.  It's an excellent musical
>form--especially if you define it broadly the way Mark L. tends to. ;)

Keets:

HEY!

Look, it's easy to see that Rock music is a broad genre. I mean, it
ecompasses everything from Chuck Berry or The Stones (Rock N Roll) to ELP
(Progressive) to Clash (Punk) to Gary Numan (New Wave) to Pearl Jam (Grunge
or Alternative) to Limp Bizkit (Hardcore), with detours like Ratt (Heavy
Metal, sort of) and Dave Edmunds (Rockabilly) galore. I could go on but you
get the idea. That's pretty damned broad, if you ask me.

> Its true that the form of rock as we know it

Anne:

I'm not sure what you mean here, because Rock as I know it was a constantly
evolving animal...that is, until it burned out (but hasn't faded away). And
THAT, BTW, is what Neil Young was talking about exactly. He must feel the
same way I do about Rock music. Sure he does, given the stuff he's released.
Me and Neil, yep.

>16 days till my 21st!

Happy Birthday.

>Yeah, I know what you mean.  My point was that women likely think that same

Keets:

Well, damn, another of the 8 million reasons for a woman to reject a man.
Jeez!
I said I didn't want to swim in the same pool, but I never said I couldn't
be coaxed in.

> Linda and Paul were obviously pleased with the marriage.

Obviously, but so were John and Yoko. All I can say is: those two women had
something no other guy will ever understand. It's not their personality,
intelligence, looks, and especially singing...yet they both got their men to
let them sing. Unbelievable.

>well to keep it as pure as they do.  You DO have to admit that Who fans
keep
>hoping Pete will have some terminal accident with his guitar.

Uh, I do? I have never hoped for such a thing. But then, I'm not a sports
guy (music instead) and never got off on races, etc. Maybe you're right.

> Why not?  If it's not open to new influences, then how can anybody
innovate?

Because taking an established form of music and adding another is not the
definition of innovation. Innovation can come FROM something established,
but there also has to be something new created. Roll Over Beethoven by ELO
was NOT innovative.
The truth of it is, it was a lot easier to be innovative when Rock was in
its infancy. Now it's pretty impossible. You know as well as I that if The
Beatles with their musical skill circa 1963 (when they conquered the
airwaves) couldn't get a job in a podunk bar these days. They'd be laughed
out of there.

>  Nothing's ever new, only a synthesis of things already present.

Not really, although I can see why it may seem so now. But there was a time,
and I remember it, when music was moving forward with new stuff every week.
That is why I set the cut-off date in the 70's, because with the coming of
Punk (recycled early British Rock) ended the innovation...or, as I do
believe, it was over and waiting to get killed off. Punk wasn't innovative
but it was exciting, at least.
The reason for all of this is complex, but to put it simply: before the
60's, there was less media and a trend would last...a style would remain and
evolve. But after TV and portable radio, followed by MTV and eventually the
Web, any significant interesting thing (be it music or not) is immediately
pounced on and used up and profited-on ASAP.
Let me put it this way: how many new bands who become very popular survive
their first album? Not too many. Or how about this: you can name 10 bands
major bands from the 60's, at least, and maybe 8 from the 70's...but the
80's had U2 and REM (both of which betrayed their promise) and the
90's....Pearl Jam and that's about it. Maybe NIN, even though they're
essentially a one trick pony.

>In rock music?  Does he get to combine it with anything else?

He can do anything he wants to. I don't have to like it, though. I've never
been happy with the horns (Deep End/Tommy 1989), for instance.

>Actually the Roger/Pete collaboration might turn up something new.  That's
>something they've never done before.

That's asking a lot from Roger, who has never written a song worth much
IMHO.

>Not the youth anthem, of course, but I think there is/was plenty of mature,
>adult rodk music around the edges.  It's never quite a popular as the
>youth-oriented stuff, but it does have more staying power.

I didn't mean one couldn't make mature Rock music, but that Pete believed
one couldn't. But he tried anyway, and was never happy with the result. As
we all know from our history lesson.

>I guess that's where we part company.  You consider it "dead" because
>it hasn't innovated?

Phil:

Yep.

> Whereas I would only consider it "dead" if it
>didn't move me anymore.  New songs by new bands still move me

Well, that's nice. I'm glad someone can find some value out of it. All I can
do is hear where they took this from, that from...you know?

>innovative?  Hell no, they were retro before anyone even knew what

They were, and the Stray Cats more so. Yet I saw them live and they were
great. I never said I didn't LIKE the music...only that it was dead. The new
Pearl Jam album is great, and it just came out.

>I'd say the synth bands did some innovative things since the 70s

They didn't do anything ELP/Yes/Gentle Giant/Strawbs/King Crimson and so on
didn't do first, and usually better.

>Apparently this bothers you more than it bothers me ;-).

I am a snob when it comes to music. It's true, and I admit it. That's why
The Who is my favorite band, you know. Like Townshend, I know the potential
for greatness is there and I get disappointed every time the promise is left
unfullfilled...or a band betrays their promise and gives into a trend...goes
from being a trendsetter to a follower. From innovator to imitator.
Me and Pete and Neil. Yep.

>Anyone who isn't yet familiar with Muddy, I recommend the "Muddy
>Waters on Chess" compilation.  Somehow I lost my copy of the first
>disc and now I have to hunt it out again.  A sweet compilation!

Also Fathers And Sons, or Live (At Mr. Kelly's). Just get one, any one. You
can't go wrong.

>I think of everything The Who did from Tommy onwards to be more
>"adult" than most of the stuff that comes out.

See what I said to Keets above.

>For some emotion laden electronica, try "Synergy".