>>1798337What does the perception of quality have to do with "serious". Words are not just monuments that never move, they have a life themselves. When you use the word "serious" about rock music you are actually repeating one of the general insults levels at rock during it's infancy. At that point those that either didn't understand or felt threatened by it usually said it will never last, it is just a fad and it is not "SERIOUS MUSIC". But that was a long, long time ago and it has lasted, and it has grown and evolved and everyone in the world listens to it. It has infused nearly all popular music, it has completely infused with Jazz in a number of elves, some more subtle than others and I would even go so far as to say it has effected how we hear classical music as well. There is not enough space to say how this is so but it is. I never see anyone saying this about blues for instance. Commercial success and "serious" are not mutually exclusive as you seem to indicate. They usually are but every now and then they converge in a particular place and time. Miles Davis for instance, Mozart for instance (though Mozart ultimately died poor he was well employed or we would be saying Mozart? Who the fuck is that?). I was alive when the Beatles first played in the US. And I did see them on Ed Sullivan, and I do remember what a big deal a new Beatles record was at the time. But I was not really a fan. I liked them just fine but Beatles fans were devotees. I remember a conversation one time when the Ramones were getting popular. The son of a flautist in the NY Philharmonic was a big Ramones fan having grown up with them. The Ramones fans were giddily claiming that the Ramones were better than or as good as or the second coming of the Beatles.
