Cash and Currency
(originally published under the
pseudonym Warren Sentence)
Rock musicians have learned how to grow old gracefully. That sucks. If the Rolling Stones havent earned the right to grow old dis-gracefully, who then? Surveying the aging landscape of rock and roll growing older, on average, just like the rest of us I am unable to find examples of older and better. When I voice my distress, friends point to Neil Young, who for a while, hung on to a notion of principle and a sense of fuck-youness. True enough. But these elements on albums like Arc and Ragged Glory are merely echoes of more fully-realized value and valor in earlier works, like Tonights The Night or, my personal favorite, On The Beach. None of my friends are willing to dispute that these 70s albums are, simply-put, better than Neils work in the late-80s and 90s. But why? We can admire a man in Neils shoes, at Neils age in 1990 asking "why do I keep fucking up?" But this is a reaction prompted by Neil Youngs age, not in spite of it. Its the equivalent of "pretty good for an old guy."
For me, growing old dis-gracefully, would consist of carrying on with the work of rock music (to paraphrase the Flaming Lips): to provide needles for our balloons. From the start, rock and roll took aim at deconstructing accepted wisdom and convention. Trouble is, as rock altered culture, culture in its limitless capacity as the ultimate, adaptable organism expanded to accept and conventionalize rock. So, the Rolling Stones hedonistic misbehavior was subsumed as an archetype. We all had a bit of Mick and Keith in us. The question, as a Stones fan, was whether we were a bit more Mick or a bit more Keith. And the useful lesson (if thats not overstating it) was how to arrange ones priorities to allow the Mick and the Keith within us to peacefully coexist. The hope, of course, was that they might combine within us to produce the personal equivalent of Satisfaction.
The real Mick and Keith, in order to assume their archetypal status, had to allow the culture to subsume them. By definition, a myth must live within the culture. The Rolling Stones subsumption, though, was abetted by the commercial iconization (or branding, if youve read Naomi Klein) of the band as a product. The easiest thing for a consumer culture to get a handle on (to handle, to subdue) is a product its what our culture is good at; its the cultures fundamental skill. The Stones branded themselves as the hedonistic, devil-may-care alternative. They made themselves the accepted/acceptable, visible edge of the hidden underground of sex, drugs , and selfish positivity. The Rolling Stones logo a massive lips and tongue is understood, almost universally, as a stand-in for the massive cock they couldnt use in mainstream culture. Once the Stones confirmed themselves as products, once Mick was a product and Keith was a product, once Mick-and-Keith was a product, their ability to deconstruct anything was rendered ineffectual. The massive cock was impotent (therefore, safe).
I mention this only because, after listening to the new Johnny Cash album, The Man Comes Around, I am struck by how, at the very end of an unexpectedly long life, Johnny Cash is making rock music which is as vital as anyones. You can quibble about whether Johnny Cash is or ever was rock if you want to, but theres a picture of Johnny Cash at a piano in the Sun studios with Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis Presley which settles the argument, for me, historically. And there are three Johnny Cash albums on American Recordings (Im leaving out the album he did with Willie Nelson) which settle it formally. I find myself at odds to explain the miracle of Johnny Cashs late albums. In lieu of explanation I offer the following observations:
Johnny Cash (1932 2003).
Bye bye, baby. And amen.
© 2003 Seth Kim-Cohen