The toll of rock'n'roll? How droll.
December 10, 2002 ~ 5:22 p.m.
The esteemed Mr. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., conservative extraordinaire, wrote a highly entertaining but curious lead piece about rock�n�roll in the last issue of The American Spectator magazine. Tyrrell describes himself as �an adult who tired of rock�n�roll by the age of 30,� and asserts that the rock artist �usually expires with little to show for his suffering.�
One, my father, in the same age group as Tyrrell, didn�t seem to tire of rock music until he hit 40 (now preferring Anthony Lloyd Webber soundtracks and Bocelli � and, dear Lord, please don�t let the same fate befall me). Two, neither the Beatles nor their music could be called anything other than rock. Is this, according to Tyrrell�s damnation of rock�n�roll, reason to shun their output, to suggest that John Lennon � who did not die from self-inflicted illness � had little to show because he chose rock music as the medium through which to express himself? Can it not be said that Lennon/McCartney pumped out just as much well-loved music as did Broadway�s Rodgers/Hart or Tin Pan Alley? Even Tyrrell admits that George Harrison, the only Beatle who gets a mention in the article, lived �to a respectable 58, one year longer than the 19th century�s Ludwig van Beethoven.� The Beatles kept their music and their rock lifestyle in some sort of persepective.
Speaking of Tin Pan Alley and Broadway, in 1977, Billy Joel dipped heavily into chord sequences and time signatures from this era of music, and the result was his blockbuster album The Stranger � arguably one of the best albums of the rock era. The argument that rock and its predecessors are so disparate of each other � Tyrrell�s prevailing argument in the second half of the essay � is laughable. Rock had to evolve from something. It evolved from Tin Pan Alley and Broadway, which itself evolved from experimentation with jazz. Country and blues contributed heavily to rock�n�roll. Yet nowhere does Tyrell give mention of jazz, country or blues music.
One of my very first columns written in 1991 for my university�s newspaper was entitled �The toll and droll of rock�n�roll.� This early column of mine is what I was reminded of as I read Tyrrell�s piece. In that column, I argued that although rock music is all well and good, it was getting carried away, too loud, and losing the spirit that made it so popular in the first place. Many consider Guns�n�Roses� Appetite for Destruction a rock masterpiece, which it no doubt is, but I hated the album and still do. Tyrrell and I would stand in agreement that not all rock music is good � just as true today as it was in 1991.
Tyrell wonders why the progressives in the 1970s on didn�t allay themselves against rock�n�roll, taking the cue from the anti-rock preachers of the �50s and �60s, namely the health conscious and consumer activist busybodies � precursory Ralph Nader-ites, in other words.
Tyrrell writes:
�[I] have come to the belief that the preachers should have framed their denunciations of rock not in terms of public morals but in terms of public health. What mattered to influential Americans as the 20th century was going aglimmer was less the word of God and more the word of The New England Journal of Medicine. Perfectly sensible people with no axes to grind have scrutinized rock�n�roll through the years and come to recognize that rock�n�roll is a very unhealthy art form. Rock�s greatest performers frequently have died young, usually horribly, and after acquiring large numbers of bad habits and fishy associates. Those who have lived into middle age have spent an inordinate amount of time in the emergency room, on the surgery table and in all kinds of arduous therapies � The Grateful Dead�s Jerry Garcia, despite his group�s irony-layered name, made it to age 50. Of course, his life was a nightmare for Blue Cross and Blue Shield; and when he did conk he looked older than Methuselah.
�The health of those in the audience was not much better. I have in mind the well-documented calamities suffered by those who flocked to the rockers� �concerts,� for instance: their drug overdoses, delirium tremens, one-car accidents and head lice � Considering the public health consequences of rock�n�roll, the exorbitant costs of concert tickets and the shoddy quality of concert souvenirs, the hypochondriacs of the progressive movement and their allies, the consumerists, had plenty of grounds for complaint �
�Let OSHA�s bureaucrats loose on the rock industry and the resulting compilation of job-site disasters, job-related injuries and untimely deaths might trigger immediate congressional action. The death rates among rock singers almost certainly surpass those of asbestos workers; and remember how expeditiously government put the asbestos producers into bankruptcy along with many corporations only distantly related to asbestos ��
This all makes for intriguing conversation, and it is a clever argument indeed. But, on the flipside, rock music is the conscious choice of those who play it or listen to it. You cannot ban an entire form of music � that would be the way of ayatollahs everywhere. That is why the above segments from Tyrrell�s essay must be treated as satire.
No arguments will be issued from me countering the allegations of untimely deaths � certainly there have been enough of them � or the unsanitary conditions of concerts � especially concerts on humid summer days. For this very reason, I have always preferred the studio album to the live experience. But how come genre-establishing rockers such as Alice Cooper (who still looks fabulous), David Bowie or Ozzy Osbourne are still very much alive and kicking?
In the end, to claim that rock music has no place, indeed that popular music should have stopped at Tony Bennett, Dean Martin or Frank Sinatra is quite absurd. I understand Tyrrell�s larger point, as aforementioned, I played the role of anti-rock curmudgeon myself twelve years ago (at the age of 21, if you can believe it). I know that Tyrrell would have little regard for the likes of Green Day, Sum 41 or Black Sabbath. But he clearly has not listened to albums like Matchbox 20�s Yourself or Someone Like You or the Alan Parsons Project�s I Robot. If he did, he may concede that rock�n�roll can be very tastefully done and easy on the ears.
Sorry, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., but rock is not entirely about being noisy, acting outrageous, polluting the morals of America�s young (especially considering half of the greatest rock acts are British), pursuing an abominable political agenda, or dying before one�s time. It is up to the artists in question what sort of lifestyle they lead. They will always make mistakes and be pushed into the outer limits as befits the hedonistic audience they serve. Despite all the excesses of rock that disgust me as well, it is still a form of music I cannot do without. I�m a child of the �70s, after all.
You�d be doing a far better favor to the world by attacking Popstars or Fame Academy along with all the noxious boy and girl bands on which the programs are based. Talk about noise, fishy associates and controversial morals. Rock�n�roll may be all that but at least it is real music.
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!