Markets, Marxists, and Popular Taste Fascism
If a punk record was played in the forest and no one heard it …
This entry is something of an aside to the last couple of entries …
There’s always been this argument that it’s impossible to truly gauge popular taste in music because there has never been an even playing field. If, in the mid-to-late-’70s, a Pere Ubu track was never played on the radio, how do we know whether anyone would have really preferred Lynyrd Skynyrd? We might assume that most people would prefer Lynyrd Skynyrd, but at the same time, there may be a group of people who would truly prefer Pere Ubu if they had a chance to hear the group.
The flip side of this is that popularity in no way guarantees that something is good or bad. Most critics seem to think that Led Zeppelin’s Presence(1976) and Pink Floyd’s Animals (1977) were solid albums, and while neither album sold as much as IV (1971) or Dark Side of the Moon (1973), they sold well enough (and much better than anything by Pere Ubu). The point is, big name bands at major labels have made good music.
The problem, it seems to me, is not that there would be a “popular,” or that people would prefer one thing to another, but that the popular-in being pushed by the labels with the most money and the radio stations dependent on advertising-becomes fascist in crowding out other forms of expression. If record bins and FM formats are crowded with Boston (1976), Double Vision (1978), and Rumors (1977), there’s no room for Meet the Residents (1974). If we are not familiar with something, we don’t usually go looking for it. And even if we know something exists, it may be difficult to track down.
Odds & Sods, 1975-79
Rock n roll Velveeta ..
I just have a few more days of break … so I want to lay out a few loose ideas around the subject of rock in the mid-to-late-‘70s. The biggest thing I’m thinking of this morning is how bands like Boston become part of the mainstream hegemony by the mid-1970s. In other words, rock, with bands like Boston, became conservative. Yes, they wanted to get high and play rock n roll, but this was rock n roll with no imagination, rock n roll as processed Velveeta.
It’s strange to me how calling a band a rock band automatically ups expectations. If Boston or the Eagles had just called themselves pop bands, if they would’ve never let on that they believed they were creative rock geniuses, then we could have just enjoyed “More Than a Feeling” and “Peaceful Easy Feeling” like we enjoy “Sara Smile.” As rock bands, though, we’re forced to compare them—say, in 1976—to Lou Reed, Patti Smith, the Residents … And even Aerosmith—if you bought the rap about the band being a dumbed-down, American version of the Rolling Stones—had to start looking pretty smart and even fun beside Boston and the Eagles.
Which brings me to one more question: How does one measure out the spaces between these multiple approaches to rock during the mid-to-late-‘70s? Between the nostalgia of Bruce Springsteen, Bob Seger, and Tom Petty, and the experimentation of the Residents and Pere Ubu; between the predictability of Boston and the Eagles and the punk assault of Patti Smith and the Ramones; and between the aging rockers who’d run out of steam like Led Zeppelin and the Stones to aging rockers who still gave the impression of having something to say like Neil Young and the Who?
Led Zep’s Last Stand, ‘75-76
Prog meets metal.
One thing that’s always stuck me as odd is whether rock can be said to have musical–as opposed to lyrical–ideas. I think the obvious answer–looking at ’70s’ progressive rock–is of course. But the answer–I think–isn’t always so obvious. It seems that one of the reason’s critics initially hated Led Zeppelin is that–from the point of view of the idealistic ’60s–they were musical cynics. Led Zeppelin II (1969) reduced rock to its worst base elements: rebellion was about little more than partying and getting laid. Forget the Who and the Kinks.
But it sounded good, and later Zep albums expanded on the concept of sound itself. This was taken furthest with songs/ pieces like “Kashmir,” progressive rock filtered through a heavy metal mesh. Who knows or cares what Robert Plant is singing about? It’s the sound of his voice melding with the rock n roll string quartet that matters.
Other songs from ‘75-76 like “Trampled Under Foot” and “Achilles Last Stand” were also extremely long and–for my tastes–boring. I understand that Zep was developing musical ideas in these songs, but I’m unclear how to weigh the rock aesthetics of these songs. I’m always tempted to assert something like–the band, looking for critical respect, pushed past its ability to deliver–but it could be that Led Zeppelin had just used up its best musical ideas by Houses of the Holy (1973). Both “No Quarter” and “The Rain Song” have rich textures that evoke mood; “Trampled Under Foot” and Achilles Last Stand” seem rather primitive in comparison, loud repetitive grooves going nowhere.
