"Okay, I've edited some (not all) of the sarcasm out of my original post. The best popular music, especially rock and roll music, embodies a spirit of change, possibility, optimism (or conversely its description of how fucked up things are may be brutally frank but the hope for change is still implicit) but the sense of hope and even revolution (and danger) exists in the best rock and roll music. There exists a sense of subversion in good rock and roll."

Heh. No need to worry about offending me with sarcasm. I rather enjoy it if it's nicely phrased.

So . . . if the best R&R music embodies a spirit of change, possibility, optimism . . . even subversion . . .what in that list excludes something like Boston?

Is there such a thing as music where the spirit of subversion overtakes those other things?

When I listen to something like the Sex Pistols (or even most of The Clash), for example, I suspect that certain musical virtues are abandoned (most of the ones I like) in favor of that subversion.

"Woody Guthrie had it, Velvet Underground, Patti Smith, Little Richard, The Beatles all had it. David's 'Triage' and 'Boomtown' certainly have it. The Clash had it. If you don't understand that- if you can't feel that in your bones then you should probably stick with Joe Walsh singing 'I Love Big Tits"...."

Well I've certainly been known to enjoy a good bit of bawdy comedy, even tawdry bits like that one, but I don't think that what I'm after in those songs is really about "music" per se. That kind of thing can be good for a laugh, fun to sing around campfires with college buddies, etc.

I certainly agree that all the artists listed "had/have it," as you say. It's just that I would go so far as to add quite a lot of artists to that list, and many that I would add, I get the feeling that you would not; likewise, many that you (or Peter T who was on about the Clash earlier) would add, I would probably not personally add, but wouldn't kick off of either. It's not that I don't recognize what they were doing . . . I just don't happen to enjoy listening to them do it.

"Like the punchline of a joke, some things can't- and shouldn't have to be explained. It's what people used to call 'soul'... "

There may be something in that. However, I resist the temptation to quit talking about art. I mean, really, why? I believe that art thrives on conversation, and if the conversation goes away, something vital about the art does too. And maybe what I'm onto here is the notion that "explaining" means something has been figured out that will now be transmitted, some deep truth at the heart of art about which no arguments will be suffered, whereas I aim for a more conversational model of talking about art.

Yeah--maybe I really want to say "art resists explanation, but thrives on conversation."

Hey look at that! A thought-for-the-day that will fit on a tiny post-it note! That'll keep me humming happily for a few minutes. :)

Herring405