In 1978, around the time of The Who’s latest album release, ‘Who Are You?’, Pete Townshend and Keith Moon gave an interview to Good Morning America; during which they discussed various odds and sods against the backdrop of a TV set design that to my eye, seems incongrous with the world they inhabited; that of hard hitting rock n roll: the perfect blend of art school intellect and working class rough n tumble.
note: This was Keith Moon’s last interview; before he died in his sleep from an overdose of the medication he was taking to…combat his alcoholism.
But that’s another story. In this rather brief post, I want to pick up on something that Pete mentions regarding his view on the role of rock n roll. To quote:
” We really are idealists in what we do…we think that rock n roll is more than just music for kids. We believe it is something greater…not so much an art form but a street release; rock music is important to people because it allows them to not run away from the problems that are there, but instead to dance all over them. That’s what rock n roll is all about.”
Just as with a lot of things, there are some – perhaps many – who are engaged in trying to define something in terms of what it is and what it is not. ‘Rock n Roll’ has been no exception. I would imagine there have been numerous interpretations of what is meant by ‘Rock n Roll’ ever since its inception. What we can agree on is that, in the beginning the words were a reference to some kind of carnal activity; and were coined by an American DJ called Alan Freed. And that this was music aimed at youth: presented by youth for youth – not something for the older generations.
From a cynical point of view, I would say that the rise of rock n roll was driven by its market potential just as much as anything that has come along since. The teenage market – baby boomers one and all – was a significant market and ‘business’ sat up and took notice of the fact that kids started having money in their back pockets. But the kids would never have got it together for themselves: it took the business world. It took shady characters like Colonel Tom Parker, it took middle aged men who controlled the levers and pulled the strings to make all of this happen. And it wouldn’t have happened at all…if there hadn’t been any money in it for them!
So, that explains the rise of rock n roll since the 50’s in a very truncated way. But it will do for now.
I would rather talk about how its interpretation has changed over the decades; from starting out as something for kids that might get on the radio to…something else.
You might say that it has grown up! And why shouldn’t it have – after all, its key players and their audience all grew up with it. They were faced with a choice: either leave it behind like a caterpillar leaves an old skin behind; or try to mould it to fit one’s current preoccupations and position.
I think Pete Townshend in particular – being the thinking one in the band- certainly went through a ‘crises’ in regard to his and the band’s position within the realms of rock n roll. Certainly by the time the 70’s rolled in, as evident from interviews he gave in the 70’s, he was giving a lot of thinking time to where it was all heading.
The fundamental problem was that the members of the band were maturing, reaching their 30’s and yet, expected to fulfill some kind of rock n roll purpose in life. I guess the problems bore down on Townshend’s shoulders more than the rest; because he wrote the songs: it was his message being broadcast.
All forms of cognitive dissonance have to be resolved in order to bring action and belief into line. Instead of giving it all up, Townshend began to reconceptualise what rock n roll was/is all about. This allowed the Who to continue the dayjob, of delivering some kind of message; to an audience that was equally reaching a state of maturity.
This crises endured by Townshend must have been shared by many rock n rollers in the 70’s…the feeling that they were getting older and that it was not reconcilable with the original conception of rock n roll. So bit by bit, things changed – the goal posts were shifted.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is why today, we think nothing of a 70+ year old man prancing about a stage singing songs in his inimitable way with the help of his aged mates. Although personally, I think there is something undignified in being geriatric and still trying to act like you were at least half the age. It is also questionable whether the older acts can still deliver the goods when energy is a requirement. A lot of music doesn’t hold up without a certain energy level; the cracks begin to appear! Should rock n roll have remained the preserve of youth? Should Townshend simply have called the Who something else; not rock n roll? And do we really care?
Ok, it’s a very indepth subject which I have only just touched upon. Perhapd you would like to raise a comment…
