I wasn't crazy about having to read George Orwell's Animal Farm back in the ninth grade, but I certainly don't regret having read it - and there are a number of images that have stuck with me from those pages. The book's ending leaps to mind first: years after the animals have risen up, taken over the farm from their human masters and given blood, sweat and tears for their cause of liberation, they peek into the farmhouse window. There they see their Ruling Pig negotiating with the Men who run the neighbouring farms, and realize the revolutionaries have become the original oppressors - the Pig is indistinguishable from the Men, and the animals are back to being as oppressed as they ever were.
As a (very young) child of the 70's, I became increasingly disgusted as the decade wore on by the way rock music had given way to disco and light pop. Where was all the energy, the rebelliousness, that hint of danger that made 'modern' music so exciting? Why were all the Grammy winners performing with strings and horns on stage with them? It felt to me like pop culture had just taken a big Valium just as my generation was craving something energizing...or were they? In my little town, I seemed to be the only one complaining...
I read a fascinating book two years ago: the Million-Dollar Les Paul. Recounting the growth of the vintage electric guitar market in general and the and the ascent in value of the cherry-sunburst Gibson Les Paul in particular (manufactured in the red-to-yellow sunburst colour from 1958-'60), Bacon concludes that the demand for vintage electric guitars - especially among men of the baby-boomer generation - has driven the value of these instruments to the point that they're generally too valuable to play onstage and so prohibitively expensive that they are more widely held by non-musician collectors than professional guitarists.
The more violent the revolution, the more oppressive shall be the revolutionaries...
It's certainly ironic that the tools of the trade for cultural rebellion have become the province of well-healed old men - and I'm not just talking about guitars here. I wonder who sits on the board of directors for a record company like Sony or Universal? Probably not young turks - and it's probably irrelevant anyway, because music is just a tiny component of these corporate behemoths.
Perhaps this all comes down to the question of what you want your pop music to be: Entertainment? Wallpaper? Rebellion? Debauchery? Sedative? Dance impetus? Art? Anti-art? The cultural slums? Calculated craft? Intoxicating? I certainly have my own ideas of what role I see good pop music as playing, and it doesn't include that of sedative, wallpaper, the cultural slums or anti-art. I also don't believe any good pop music came from cold, formulaic writing or the initiative of a rich non-musician seeking to get richer still. The rebellion must remain, in some form or another. As soon as the drive for liberation has devolved into the drive for status quo, safety, preservation or pure financial gain, you have cultural soda pop - empty calories-promoting inertia, bloating and senses dulled to more sustaining choices. It would seem that any great challenge to the status quo runs the risk of becoming status quo itself if its practitioners lose their way.
To exacerbate the situation, any big-money industry will attract investors who care only for money - not the quality of music, its staying power, the well-being of the artists or anything else in the realm of a moral code or long view. More recently, the revenue-generating power of the music industry has literally become a bit of a joke, thanks to routine on-line theft of music and declining emotional resonance of the music most heavily-promoted by record labels these days. Perhaps the next decade might see some positive change: the money-sharks will find a more lucrative industry to infest, the declining influence of big labels might cause a decrease in crap being pumped into the airwaves, and a return to promotion of quality music will generate faithful audiences and conscientious artists. Perhaps a few models of vintage guitar might even enter the realm of the reasonable price. Sounds a bit Utopian, I know, but a little hope is a healthy thing. John Lennon's response to Paul McCartney's debut of "Getting Better": "It certainly couldn't get any worse!" That statement covers the current state of the revolution quite nicely, I'd say.
As a (very young) child of the 70's, I became increasingly disgusted as the decade wore on by the way rock music had given way to disco and light pop. Where was all the energy, the rebelliousness, that hint of danger that made 'modern' music so exciting? Why were all the Grammy winners performing with strings and horns on stage with them? It felt to me like pop culture had just taken a big Valium just as my generation was craving something energizing...or were they? In my little town, I seemed to be the only one complaining...
I read a fascinating book two years ago: the Million-Dollar Les Paul. Recounting the growth of the vintage electric guitar market in general and the and the ascent in value of the cherry-sunburst Gibson Les Paul in particular (manufactured in the red-to-yellow sunburst colour from 1958-'60), Bacon concludes that the demand for vintage electric guitars - especially among men of the baby-boomer generation - has driven the value of these instruments to the point that they're generally too valuable to play onstage and so prohibitively expensive that they are more widely held by non-musician collectors than professional guitarists.
The more violent the revolution, the more oppressive shall be the revolutionaries...
It's certainly ironic that the tools of the trade for cultural rebellion have become the province of well-healed old men - and I'm not just talking about guitars here. I wonder who sits on the board of directors for a record company like Sony or Universal? Probably not young turks - and it's probably irrelevant anyway, because music is just a tiny component of these corporate behemoths.
Perhaps this all comes down to the question of what you want your pop music to be: Entertainment? Wallpaper? Rebellion? Debauchery? Sedative? Dance impetus? Art? Anti-art? The cultural slums? Calculated craft? Intoxicating? I certainly have my own ideas of what role I see good pop music as playing, and it doesn't include that of sedative, wallpaper, the cultural slums or anti-art. I also don't believe any good pop music came from cold, formulaic writing or the initiative of a rich non-musician seeking to get richer still. The rebellion must remain, in some form or another. As soon as the drive for liberation has devolved into the drive for status quo, safety, preservation or pure financial gain, you have cultural soda pop - empty calories-promoting inertia, bloating and senses dulled to more sustaining choices. It would seem that any great challenge to the status quo runs the risk of becoming status quo itself if its practitioners lose their way.
To exacerbate the situation, any big-money industry will attract investors who care only for money - not the quality of music, its staying power, the well-being of the artists or anything else in the realm of a moral code or long view. More recently, the revenue-generating power of the music industry has literally become a bit of a joke, thanks to routine on-line theft of music and declining emotional resonance of the music most heavily-promoted by record labels these days. Perhaps the next decade might see some positive change: the money-sharks will find a more lucrative industry to infest, the declining influence of big labels might cause a decrease in crap being pumped into the airwaves, and a return to promotion of quality music will generate faithful audiences and conscientious artists. Perhaps a few models of vintage guitar might even enter the realm of the reasonable price. Sounds a bit Utopian, I know, but a little hope is a healthy thing. John Lennon's response to Paul McCartney's debut of "Getting Better": "It certainly couldn't get any worse!" That statement covers the current state of the revolution quite nicely, I'd say.