The Infinite Dial

An incredibly interesting discussion is brewing in the comments to Tom Webster's post about what defines a "Classic" rock song. Amazingly, it echoes many other discussions among Art Historians on our college campuses.

Some people believe in transcendence. The idea being that some art (in this case, Rock songs) has an innate genius behind it, one that can be recognized by anyone and that this quality endures. Thus, one would argue that even centuries from now, the best Rock music will be recognized for its essential greatness, just the same as we still recognize the work of Shakespeare or Mozart centuries after their time.

Others believe that art can only be viewed through the prism of one's current experience. Thus we appreciate Mozart, or Shakespeare, or The Beatles today, because they meet current definitions of greatness, but that succeeding generations may reinterpret their work, through their perspective, as less-than-great.

My experience with popular music leans me to the transcendence side of the argument. It doesn't matter when you were born, it is almost impossible to hear "My Girl" and not believe that you are hearing a Mona Lisa level pop song. It is, in my opinion, a thing of beauty that will be seen as such forever, even as time passes and modes change. Same with much of the Beatles songbook, with the best Led Zeppelin, and, I agree, the best Nirvana. These are true Classics.

And, certainly, there a zillions of examples in Art History where classics were not appreciated in their day. So perhaps Nick Drake's time will yet come.