"All forms of art have their trajectories: cubism, dadaism, bebop, etc; They're vital for awhile and then they fade away.

Rock has its own trajectory and it's just about spent: the Arena phase of rock was the death knell of rock as an art form. U2, the Stones, Billy Joel (more of a lounge act than a rock singer) and yes, even Bruce Springsteen are just going thru the motions; their relevance and their artistic capacity long since gone.

They sort of belong in a museum .... "

EdLorah, these may be the most interesting comments about art (to me) that I've seen here in a while . . . largely because there are so many terms here that deserve a bit of unpacking. I'm honestly interested in the topic, so I hope my note is seen in that spirit. I also must admit that I did not see the televised thing that prompted this discussion, so I'm ignorant as to how that went.

When you mention forms of (or movements within) art and their trajectories, I think I'm with you . . . to everything there is a season, and all that.

When you mention rock's trajectory, and its being "almost spent," I'm probably still mainly with you, but I do start to wonder about a bias I see beginning to creep in . . . that art is for the young.

And then when you bring up the concepts of "relevance" (to what, exactly?) and "artistic capacity" (and maybe you've got an Artistic Capicitograph machine I don't know about), well, suddenly I feel as though in your view one might as well give up on the idea of being an artist past the age of, say, thirty. (Okay, move it up to forty, to fifty, to sixty, to seventy--it still gives me the same bony chill.)

Arena rock as the death knell of the form? Maybe, but at least ten years past the height of such rock, out comes "Boomtown." Granted, twenty-two years after that, here we are with what seems a diminished feast, if reports on that show are to be credited, but doesn't it seem as though any moment now, somebody could breathe new life into what you might describe as the mouldering corpse of rock?

Or do you feel that rock will just go away in the mainstream ear, to be replaced by . . . oh, I don't know, Calypso or something?

(Which of course raises the question of whether the mainstream ear, whatever that is, is the real target or home of the art. Among other questions.)

And that museum you mention (sort of)--to what are its patrons listening? And why should their judgment matter?

Herring405