It is said that Stanley Kubrick always wanted to make a pornographic film and that during the making of Dr. Strangelove he and Terry Southern toiled at writing one and what the logistics would be at making one with "big stars" in the leads. Southern's script ideas from that time would later become a film called "Candy" a film basically about sex with big stars but without the "porn" as at that point nobody was willing to get behind that idea. Southern had taken his ideas from Voltaire, sort of like rock borrowing from blues or jazz, and formed a story Kubrick must not have found different enough in theme from his film version of "Lolita" or it just plain did not interest him enough. Who knows, but the film is a bad film that involved a lot of good people and at one point even interested Kubrick. Kubrick's fascination with porn makes me think of the John Cheever story "The World of Apples" which is about a great old poet who finds himself only able to write filthy limericks. I don't think Kubrick ever really let go of his desire to make a sexually explicit film with big stars and as close as he came was "Eyes Wide Shut" which was digitally censored for showing a bit too much of the ol' in-out my brothers. I guess Kubrick found a theme that suited him more than the corruption of a sweet young thing or the corruption a sweet young thing can inspire. Instead his focus became human beings surviving their desires within a marriage with all the temptation that the world provides. Something that perhaps hit a bit closer to home for Stanley.

So why am I talking about film in a thread about the "death of rock", well, I thought it might make sense to look at why people write what they write or create what they create. I don't think rock is dead but I do think it runs down some creative dead ends. As Ed said, Radiohead do not seem to be dead or running down a dead end. I would say the same about Wilco, who have grown more mellow recently but have remained very interesting. One thing I think that happens with guys like Springsteen, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and these older artists is they begin to become more interpreters of what they once did as the creative flame dims. They no longer write the way they once wrote because they are no longer the same person. When Dylan wrote "Highway 61", the Stones wrote "Exile on Main Street", or Springsteen "Greetings from Asbury Park" they were trying to "create" something they heard in their heads and felt in their hearts. When they sit down in their later years to write they seem to be trying give us a stylized version of what a Bruce, Stones, or Dylan album would be. They sort of rearrange the same pieces to the puzzle that they used to make these other records but they do so with a skill and sense of forethought that leaves out the feeling of wild abandon and freshness that is present on their earlier work. Bob Dylan can still write a great song but he can't recreate the impact of the young Bob Dylan giving us Masters of War. So, these guys to me become song interpreters or stylists which requires a different sort of appreciation for what they are doing than just being blown away by the first time you heard Mick, Keith and the boys tear through Sympathy for the Devil.

So when Ed says:

"Sure they still do something interesting occasionally but they will never produce another Highway 61 Revisited or Exile on Main Street."

Really why would you expect them to? What a 20 year old might write and how he might sing or perform it will not be the same as what a 60 year old might write and how he might sing or perform it. After all we really are not the same person we were when we were 20, our cells die and regenerate, we learn different things, forget things, travel, we're in a constant state of flux as the world changes around us. I think the fact that their performances on these records are frozen in time helps make us wonder why they still don't write or sing or perform like they once did.

This sort of brings me back to Kubrick who made 9 films we really associate with his "genius" and sort of dwelled on the same ideas for years. He wanted to make a sex film, a film about Napoleon, that sci-fi film about a mechanical boy and a film about the Nazis. Have Dylan, the Stones, or Springsteen ever really wandered far from what they have always done? No, not really and there are probably many reasons for that. Nobody ever wanted them to stray from what made them successful in the first place or maybe they found a niche to dwell in and stayed there or maybe that was all they were capable of doing so they did it. When you make a "hit" record or film people want you to make the same thing again and again, to stick to the formula. After a while it gets stale, or maybe you run out of ideas or ways of rearranging the same song. Sometimes I think it's that the person only has one great idea, other times I think it might be that they are lazy, other times it might be because they want to turn a profit but the fact remains we like things that repeat. I think this gives us a sense of comfort and nostalgia.

I also think in the 50s, 60s, and 70s you could make whatever kind of records you felt like making because rock'n'roll was still growing and expanding. By the time you hit the 80s it has become a serious business and fucking around was out of the question, there was some real money to be made and everybody knew it. So, all of these names (Dylan, Springsteen, The Stones) are brand names at that point just like Levis jeans or Colgate toothpaste. It's basically what Speilberg said at a certain point it dawned on him that he was no longer just Steven Spielberg and that a whole army of people depended on his decisions to make a living. So, it became a problem if he wanted to go make some weird little art film that would not turn a profit. This would affect the livelihood of a large group of people and I think big bands like the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, and Bruce and E Street are put in the same situation. They are no longer just young guys making records they become huge money making machines and when you have a company on your back that fails if you make a bad choice...where is the fun or abandon of rock'n'roll in that?

As far as David's records go, he has done pretty damn good. Boomtown with Mr. Ricketts did not sound like Bedtime Stories which certainly did not sound like Triage, which sounded nothing like Here Comes the NFU. I actually think this is why there are so many different types of David Baerwald fans. He never put himself into any particular place for more than one record. While this is certainly not a recipe for success as far as "rock'n'roll" goes it did allow him to create at a level far above his peers. For whatever reasons he had for making the music he did he could not be accused of repeating himself and has always set a very high standard. I think this points to rock not being dead but the idea that if somebody wants to try they can kick it in the ass and breathe some new life into it.

Radiohead will eventually get stale because they too will begin to change as people and when they do the reasons why they write songs will change and the way they make them will change and they too will begin to interpret more than create...and like Ed said it still might be "interesting" but that impact...well...the cherry has popped.