In the Friday version of LewRockwell.com, Lew posted a link to Mark Steyn's recent column on the general decline of popular music, and his preference for pre-rock era crooners, especially Mr. Perry Como. This is the second reference to Perry Como in the LRC of late.
Has Perry been dissed, to use the current vernacular, by the lack of media coverage of his recent passing? Arguably, yes.
Was he a major artist with a unique voice and style who deserves to be remembered for his impact on American popular music? Again, yes. During the early 1950's, between his Chesterfield Supper Club television show and his recordings, Perry literally owned the pop music charts. While his career languished a bit by comparison during the early years of the rock and roll era, he made a major comeback during the 1970's with another television show and hits like "It's Impossible" and "And I Love You So", which was written by – omigod – a folk-rock songwriter, Don "American Pie" McLean.
My hat is off to Mr. Como for having achieved greatness in his chosen field, but why does this recognition have to come at the expense of the majority of popular music since 1955?
Too often, critics of a conservative social bent insist that the end of civilization began when Elvis Presley recorded Bill Monroe's "Blue Moon of Kentucky" in Sam Phillip's Sun Studios on Union Avenue in Memphis one August evening in 1954. This is baloney. If anything, the recent rise of interest in libertarian thinking has come about because of a generation that grew up in the sixties and early seventies, distrusting government and realizing that war didn't accomplish much except death and destruction, unless, of course, you were a politician or a defense contractor.
The same counterculture that spawned the socialist P.C. repression of today's campuses also spawned the rise of the new conservative movement – not neocons, who think Big Government is bad only when the Democrats are in charge, but individuals who believe that government itself is the problem.
Sure, rock music is populated by knuckleheads who get caught up in the Hollywood world of social activism ("…and this ribbon, Leeza, is for Transgender House Pets Awareness Month"), but so are virtually all forms of entertainment in America. This is more a reflection of our infantile hero worship of celebrity, and how political activists utilize this phenomenon, than it is a statement regarding the relative merits of rock music as social influence.
In his article, Mr. Steyn comments that, "The(Rolling) Stones liked the songs of those old-time bluesmen, but they weren't going to end up sitting on a porch in the Mississippi Delta waiting for the welfare cheque. They were the first band with a registered trademark and a merchandising operation."
As a conservative, I find nothing wrong with that. While we can argue the whole "intellectual rights" issue, it makes sense to take advantage of the protections that the current law offers, and merchandising is certainly not a crime in my book.
As for the Rolling Stones' treatment of their Chicago and Delta blues influences, they were not only quick to credit bluesmen like Slim Harpo, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf and Sonny Boy Williamson, but they would actually perform with them. Live. Onstage. And they did all this without requiring that the "Negroes" make self-deprecating references to their ethnicity, ala Sammy and the Rat Pack. Not since Benny Goodman performed with Teddy Wilson and Lionel Hampton had such a statement been made. This raised the awareness of white audiences to the artistry of these blues musicians, and opened the door to revenue streams from performances and recording that were not previously available to them.
Much as one might appreciate the musical artistry of Perry Como, I don't believe that the same can be said for him, nor need it be. Different careers, different styles, different influences, different audience.
Certainly, there is a lot of trash that gets passed off under the guise of the generic "rock" label today, and there always has been. I would never attempt to defend all popular music simply because it fits a particular genre. In fact, many of these musical categories are so broad today as to be virtually meaningless. By the same token, I think it is an error to disparage a musical form simply because some of its principle proponents are intellectually, politically or socially unsound. While I support the notion that there is bad art and bad artists (see my last column for LRC), I am disturbed by the intellectual laziness exhibited in attacking an entire genre as being inherently evil.
What we need to do is stop thinking of music as some sort of "zero-sum" enterprise, where one form or genre can have merit only at the expense of another. This notion is ridiculous. If you don't care for rock and roll, ska, hip-hop, rap, polka, country, disco, world beat, reggae, calypso, soca, punk, opera, chamber music, whatever, that's fine. You shop at your end of Tower Records, and I'll shop at mine.
Finally, in light of the recent trend of contributors to LRC posting their photos to their work, I felt I was performing a disservice to the readers by leaving my visage out. With today's column, I will rectify the situation.
May 21, 2001
