"The English, unlike the Americans, have a very rich musical tradition, so they could turn rock, i.e. middleclass white boy identity poetry, into something worthwhile artistically; moreover, lacking an aristocracy, America could neither keep talent down as easily nor entice people with refinement, culture, beauty quite the same way—the necessary pressures for creating artists. Americans on the other hand were freer & somewhat happier, as evidenced in the music of the Beach Boys."
Not sure I agree with statement. Maybe in terms of classical music, but America ushered in Country & Western, bluegrass, American folk, Jazz, Blues, and Rhythm & Blues (R&B). Also, you highlight drugs but what role does alcohol play in the destruction of artists of all types have in the culture. Many, many deaths and self-destruction at the bottom of a bottle. Just a few thoughts!
Now, to your major points. Americans fell in love with English rock early & hard, so at that level, they decided the question & there's not much we can do about it. Especially if one stops to compare how small & poor England was compared to America, even in the mid c., it's shocking that they should have such success taking over rock music.
But leaving aside the core issue--middle class identity--there's something to the genres you picked, partly drawn from British traditions, but they flourished & withered quickly, within the lifespan of a man. America might not make for musical traditions.
Of course, the one American musical tradition--i.e. beloved, sophisticated, & enduring--was church music. It's also the most obviously English tradition. Pop music killed it in the mid-c., soon after recruiting the talent trained in church (happened to black Protestants, not just white).
Regarding the "British Invasion" of rock, I'll always see it differently since learning the role of the Tavistock Institute. I'll never look at the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, or even the Kinks in the same way.
Those three artists foremost had problems with fitting their artistic idealism into the extremely materialistic and cynical music machine they bacame a part of, and which rode them to exhaustion and beyond.
Pink Floyd of course made many songs and whole albums about that dilemma(e.g. Wish You Were Here). Brian Wilson got almost crushed by the machine (which included his father). Peter Green had similar problems, and started to despise matarialism.
They were rich, famous, and hated what they become, and didn't see a way to escape. There were drugs everywhere. Naturally they took drugs to try to ease their pain, but it doesn't mean the drugs where causing the issues.
The Beatles describe how they started to hate touring in 65 or so, and then started to do drugs to escape. But after they quit touring, they got off drugs quickly, at least got off the addiction. There was no need for it anymore.
I don't think LSD was or is a problematic drug anyway. One is not really tempted to overdo, and it is not physically addicitve. (Syd Barret probably is one of the few exceptions)
Andreesen should not mix it up with the really destructive drugs. Those who killed themselves with drugs did it with alcohol, heroin, or cocaine (e.g. Billy Holiday, Jimi Hendrix, Bon Scott, Amy Weinhouse).
Unlike Titus, I'm in the camp that admires the music of Barrett-era Floyd over all that followed. My one written bit on this is an essay on "Matilda Mother," though it's as much about Tolkien/Lewis and Jacques Tati as it is about Barrett. https://substack.com/@carlericscott838345/p-41810879
I take LSD to be more dangerous than you do, I think you're wishful.
This difference may have something to do with another -- I don't take what "the Beatles describe" as simply the truth of the matter. It's too wishful to say "artistic idealism" v "cynical machine."
"The English, unlike the Americans, have a very rich musical tradition, so they could turn rock, i.e. middleclass white boy identity poetry, into something worthwhile artistically; moreover, lacking an aristocracy, America could neither keep talent down as easily nor entice people with refinement, culture, beauty quite the same way—the necessary pressures for creating artists. Americans on the other hand were freer & somewhat happier, as evidenced in the music of the Beach Boys."
Not sure I agree with statement. Maybe in terms of classical music, but America ushered in Country & Western, bluegrass, American folk, Jazz, Blues, and Rhythm & Blues (R&B). Also, you highlight drugs but what role does alcohol play in the destruction of artists of all types have in the culture. Many, many deaths and self-destruction at the bottom of a bottle. Just a few thoughts!
Jenna, a book you might like, which makes the case for the Afro-American muse, is Hole in Our Soul by Martha Bayles. 1994. The best thing any conservative has written on popular music. You might also check out my Carl's Rock Songbook series, https://www.nationalreview.com/postmodern-conservative/carls-rock-songbook-no-100-songbook-glance-carl-eric-scott/, especially numbers 12-19, 39, 42-43.
I’ll look for both of those. Thank you for the recommendations. I do appreciate it!
Like Carl, I recommend the Bayless book!
Now, to your major points. Americans fell in love with English rock early & hard, so at that level, they decided the question & there's not much we can do about it. Especially if one stops to compare how small & poor England was compared to America, even in the mid c., it's shocking that they should have such success taking over rock music.
But leaving aside the core issue--middle class identity--there's something to the genres you picked, partly drawn from British traditions, but they flourished & withered quickly, within the lifespan of a man. America might not make for musical traditions.
Of course, the one American musical tradition--i.e. beloved, sophisticated, & enduring--was church music. It's also the most obviously English tradition. Pop music killed it in the mid-c., soon after recruiting the talent trained in church (happened to black Protestants, not just white).
Regarding the "British Invasion" of rock, I'll always see it differently since learning the role of the Tavistock Institute. I'll never look at the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, or even the Kinks in the same way.
Well now I have to add to my reading list. Thanks for the conversation!
Likewise!
Even in classicakl music America is not behind the UK. E.g. Gershwin, Barber, Evans.
The English added there unique flavour to popular music though, and their big interest in musical exploration.
Those three artists foremost had problems with fitting their artistic idealism into the extremely materialistic and cynical music machine they bacame a part of, and which rode them to exhaustion and beyond.
Pink Floyd of course made many songs and whole albums about that dilemma(e.g. Wish You Were Here). Brian Wilson got almost crushed by the machine (which included his father). Peter Green had similar problems, and started to despise matarialism.
They were rich, famous, and hated what they become, and didn't see a way to escape. There were drugs everywhere. Naturally they took drugs to try to ease their pain, but it doesn't mean the drugs where causing the issues.
The Beatles describe how they started to hate touring in 65 or so, and then started to do drugs to escape. But after they quit touring, they got off drugs quickly, at least got off the addiction. There was no need for it anymore.
I don't think LSD was or is a problematic drug anyway. One is not really tempted to overdo, and it is not physically addicitve. (Syd Barret probably is one of the few exceptions)
Andreesen should not mix it up with the really destructive drugs. Those who killed themselves with drugs did it with alcohol, heroin, or cocaine (e.g. Billy Holiday, Jimi Hendrix, Bon Scott, Amy Weinhouse).
There was a recent Roger Waters interview on Joe Rogan where he strongly implies LSD was not the key cause of Barrett's fall into mental illness. Not sure what to make of that... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BcKrk5tFnE&ab_channel=PowerfulJRE
Unlike Titus, I'm in the camp that admires the music of Barrett-era Floyd over all that followed. My one written bit on this is an essay on "Matilda Mother," though it's as much about Tolkien/Lewis and Jacques Tati as it is about Barrett. https://substack.com/@carlericscott838345/p-41810879
And if you want more on Brian Wilson's case, and the machine he was up against, see my review of the film Love and Mercy. https://www.nationalreview.com/postmodern-conservative/carls-rock-songbook-no-107-love-and-mercy-carl-eric-scott/
I take LSD to be more dangerous than you do, I think you're wishful.
This difference may have something to do with another -- I don't take what "the Beatles describe" as simply the truth of the matter. It's too wishful to say "artistic idealism" v "cynical machine."