If someone else had posted my last post on their blog, I would have written in and posted a comment about the cinematography of the Hendrix video from 3:33 to 3:46. First thing. But at the time of this post (right now) none of the six viewers who have visited since have commented. So I guess that is one way in which you and I are different. I also imagine that 3:33 to 3:46 is also a way in which Jimi Hendrix and Lawrence Welk were different.
Are we "all one" or are we "many?"
+ + +
Here are the two other videos that were in the running for anti-Welk.
This gem:
And this chestnut:
(I'm sorry, did you see the child at :40 and again at 4:10? Do they roll that way on Bob The Builder? Does Square Pants swing this hard? Does Barney provide a similar vehicle encouraging the children to feel and celebrate their life, their prana, their orgone?)
+ + +
So really now, who is OUR Lawrence Welk? Certainly we must have one, musn't we?
Who can deny Lawrence Welk provided an essential function in our 'culture?'
What was Lawrence Welk's function? What was Lawrence Welk doing by invoking hippy imagery? How did that make his guests feel? Were they annoyed? Were they relieved? Were they validated? Were they misled?
Who was that audience? Do they 'matter?' Do they 'count?'
Certainly someone or some group is performing that function in our culture, to "us."
Certainly someone or some group is diluting and diffusing highly idiosyncratic cultural sentiments and statements through the magic of caricature, pasteurization and/or 'tribute.'
Can someone or some group concentrate, deepen and/or elaborate highly idiosyncratic cultural sentiments and statements through the magic of caricature, pasteurization and/or 'tribute'?
Does it work that way?
Can a caricature, pasteurization or 'tribute' to an original be "better" than the original?
Can it be more "original" than the "original?"
Can it have more of the "original essence" than the "original?" Can it have any the "original essence" at all?
Can it annunciate the "original" message more clearly than the "original" annunciator?
I'm not entirely sure the answer to all those questions are no. Sad, ain't it. Just the same, even if all the answer to all those questions is no, that doesn't mean that Lawrence Welk (and Lawrence Welk 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, etc) doesn't have an essential function in our culture and/or economy. A lot of people really really loved them some Lawrence Welk and a lot of people really really still do.
Which (for me) beggs the question Is music really a temporal art?
Does music ever end?
(answer here)
Is that good or bad?
copyright © 2008 Stanley Jason Zappa
