Friday, August 17, 2007

why do we need to rock?

I was thinking about this. The following post attacks this qustion from way-too-many angles.
As one ages, one can become more self conscious, and thus more suggestible to such conventional criticisms as:
--why do they still need to be doing that? (i.e. up on a stage, rocking out)
and
--didn't rock and roll make its point already? Didn't it peak a few times and now it's just treading water? God, the guitar/bass/drum, verse/chorus/verse/bridge/chorus thing is SOOOO done.

As a person who truly feels most alive when up on a stage, plying music, hearing such things can cause all sorts of psychic crises. Ok, then, NOW what? Search aimlessly for something else in life that gives me guaranteed satisfaction? What? Hunting? Scuba diving? Caring for orphaned snails?

Then I had a dream last night in which I was watching some Rolling Stones thing, and the happiness I felt waking up, was so nice. It's so easy to see some old footage of something and immediately have all the smarmy stuff float to the surface. In this dream I felt like I did when I'd watch stuff and didn't have any personal experience to relate it to. (ooh, that bass player looks way too high. when will the sound guy fix that squeak? oh, come on guitarist, tune that A).

What decides the filtering process, of those who assign themselves a "withdrawal date" in music, and those who just keep doing it?
Would Robert Smith still be playing live if the Cure never got beyond, say, Robyn Hitchcock-level of success?
And vice-versa?
Does one envy the other?

I've crossed that bridge of "ok, I know my time is up pretty soon...I'm just looking for a sign, then I'll pack it all up".
I'm over that bridge.
I'm on this road of playing music, no matter what. I can't be ashamed of it. I love it.

And, yes, the journalists, possibly bored because all they can do is sit and watch and be critical, some of them have made the "god, the guitar bass drums thing is SOO over..." etc comments, and people read it and it sends a message to the kids and it's damaging. And it's conservative, diguised as progressive. (would this make it Libertarian?. Dunno).
If those writers could pick up a guitar or sit at a piano and attempt to write the rock album that has appeared in their dreams, the one they gave 5 star, eternal classic status to, they no doubt would.
There's a large chunk of music critic in me, and that's why I'm critical of the critics.
I write the songs that come out of me, but I only keep, and work on the ones that I'd put on a mix tape for someone. The ones that I hope would be able to mingle with all my favorite songs at a party.

Lastly, here's my point: to say "oh, rock is SO done.." You can't do that. It's like saying "oh, women's rights or Unions or Helping the Needy are SO done". Or, in Bush-speak "France and Germany are OLD Europe. We're interested in the new"
It's a coded message by the dark forces to get the "undesireable element" to loosen their grip on what they believe. "Oh you don't really believe that giving your hard earned money to charity will change the world? Or recycling that bottle? Or writing to your senator?".

And this is why to rock is not a cute little old fashioned thing.
Yes, the leather jackets and mohawks look is 30 friggin years old, yes, feedback and breaking stuff is 40 years old....but it still gets a rise out of people.
But also, kids? Learn to write a good song.
Before breaking stuff, the Who precede it by playing 20 amazing songs.

And I'll end by saying this:
in a new book called The World Without Us
it is stated that plastic junk, bronze art and radio waves (that's us!!) will live on and on and on as the human legacy after we die out. I thumbed through this book at work. I don't know what people are saying, but I'm intrigued.
Oh, it also says cats will survive but dogs will die out. Because cats, even after all the domesticating, still don't totally trust anyone but themselves. And they can climb a mean tree and jump a mean height.

Ok. That's a weeks worth of thoughts in one post. And that's one to grown on.
(remember Dear Alex and Annie?)

1 comment:

Rick said...

Dude, that is so Scholastic. Yes, yes, and more yes. There's a parallel in visual art, too: "Oh, gawd, do we need another painting of a human face/bowl of fruit/seascape/melting clock?" or "Hasn't the whole paint/brush/canvas thing been done to death already?" Exactly the same arguments and they all ignore the fact that the ARTIST changes. Everything is what it is. Anything different is something else. Play the game you like for as long as you like, no matter what name it wears.