Dear Comrade,
Let me be the first of numerous connoisseurs of sectarianism to remind the author of the notes to the LCR's Congress resolution (International, Vol. 3, No. 4) that the French Trotskyist organisation Lutte Ouvriere does not hold that Eastern Europe, Cuba and China are state capitalist countries. On the contrary, they hold that all these countries, with the exception of the USSR, are under the dictatorship of the [illegible]. This bizarre conclusion [illegible] on their quaint notion that the establishment of soviet-type institutions is the only way in which a workers state can be established. Thus only the USSR qualifies as a workers' state — the rest remain part of the world capitalist economy. In all fairness to the comrades of Lutte Ouvriere, we should point [illegible]. At least we can congratulate them on their very firm grasp of formal logic, but not [illegible].
Yours fraternally,
Phil Hearse
Dear Comrades,
We were surprised when we read in Robin Blackburn's article, 'What is the Democratic [illegible] calls?' (International, Vol. 3, No. 4), that 'in the Transitional Programme an important place was given to the struggle against the oppression of women', for we had not remembered it as paying any special attention to this question. We looked through our copies and found that our memories had not deceived us. On p. 110 of the Pathfinder 1974 edition it states: 'The decay of capitalism... deals its heaviest blows to the woman as wage earner and as housewife. The sections of the Fourth International should seek bases of support among the most exploited layers of the working class, consequently among the women workers. Here they will find inexhaustible stores of devotion, selflessness, and readiness to sacrifice.' And that — apart from a couple of references to housewives and two mentions of women workers — is all.
All right, perhaps, as far as it goes; but it does not go very far. Certainly not far enough to allow one to talk of the Transitional Programme having given women's oppression an important place in its pages.
Robin Blackburn refers his readers to other works besides the Transitional Programme. What do we find if we turn to these other writings of Trotsky which touch on the question of women's oppression?
Though Trotsky's articles and speeches on women and the family fill only the slimmest of volumes, they show him to have been of all the leading Bolsheviks the most sensitive (excepting Alexandra Kollantai) to the complex of economic, social and psychological factors that prevented women from taking an equal part in life. He was aware that only the industrial development of Soviet Russia would make possible the transformation of daily life, and that the liberation of women would not be an automatic by-product of economic progress but the result of positive measures taken by the government to provide canteens, creches and other social facilities. In addition to changes 'from above', changes 'from below' were recognised by Trotsky as essential. The country might remain too poor to afford a radical transformation of the social fabric, but there was nothing to stop families clubbing together, he argued, and [illegible] kitchens and other developed services, a grass roots movement could only be successful, he saw, if it actively involved women. In believing that the liberation of women required on the one hand the introduction of women into the labour force and on the other hand the socialisation of housework, and that the elimination of women's oppression could be effected by women themselves organising and acting, Trotsky shared the views of other leading Bolsheviks. The stress he laid on 'from below' and on the obstacle to change that old family forms and habits of social intercourse constituted was more uniquely his own. But though the various ideas that Trotsky put forward add up to a fairly impressive overview of the problems of women's liberation, two points need to be made in evaluating his contribution to the understanding of women's oppression.
First, his theory lacks an important dimension — Trotsky failed to consider the question of control over reproduction. He wrote in Za Zdorovyi Byt in December 1925 (see Women and the Family, Pathfinder 1970) that 'Motherhood is the question of all questions — the hub of all problems' (p.33); but he did not explore in any detail the nature of the conflict between woman's maternal role and the goal of her liberation — a conflict that was particularly sharp in the Soviet Russia of the Twenties. When Trotsky made a speech to the Third All-Union Conference on Protection of Mothers and Children in 1925 he did not raise the question of the regulation and control of fertility and the relation of this to the fight for liberation. In ignoring this problem Trotsky was not alone. There appears to have been a consensus of opinion among socialists at this time that if abortion was a woman's democratic right, it was so because of the imperfect world of capitalism, which was incapable of providing suitable conditions for the rearing of children. Lenin, writing to Inessa Armand in 1915, had listed 'freedom from childbirth' alongside 'freedom from earnestness in love' and 'freedom to commit adultery' as the sort of things that would be understood by the demand for free love and which made this a bourgeois rather than a proletarian demand. The decree legalising abortion that had been passed by the Bolshevik government in 1920 characterised abortion as an evil and saw it as only temporarily necessary: 'The Workers and Peasants Government is conscious of this serious evil to the community. It combats this evil by propaganda against abortions among working women. By working for socialism and by introducing the protection of maternity and infancy on an extensive scale, it feels assured of achieving the gradual disappearance of this evil.' In the 'whole' chapter on 'Family, Youth and Culture' in The Revolution Betrayed to which Robin Blackburn refers in passing and without criticism we find Trotsky expressing very similar views. Abortion, he writes, is one of a woman's most important civil, political and cultural rights — 'in conditions of want and family distress' (p. 149, Pathfinder 1970 edition). 'Socialism', he continues, 'was to remove the cause which impels woman to abortion' (p. 131).
The second point that has to be made is that, though Trotsky's ideas can be arranged into an impressive whole, he himself did not attempt this essential task, and that — partly as a consequence — he failed to translate his ideas into policies. His insights were not developed systematically and they remained at a very general level. Trotsky writes, for example, of the need for women to organise, but he makes no reference to the already existing organisational structure — the zhenotdel (the party apparatus responsible for work amongst women) — to suggest how its effectiveness and influence might be increased. Similarly, though he talks of the need for industrial development as a pre-requisite of liberation, he does not make this observation specific by indicating the types of economic strategy that would make possible the smoothest progress towards this end. Unspecific and uncoordinated remarks are a poor basis for action, and Trotsky, in the Twenties, did not attempt to develop any programme around the issues of women's oppression. He drew no political conclusions about the need to take into account this oppression when advancing social and economic policies. Apart from the few articles that appeared in Pravda in 1923, his ideas on the problems of women and the family were put forward when he was addressing conferences of working women and social workers, and there is little evidence that these thoughts affected his general political outlook. There is no evidence that in his day-to-day administrative activity Trotsky raised the need to consider the establishment of creches, etc as a priority. [illegible] defended the zhenotdely in their fight to retain influence in the government decision-making apparatus.
In 1925 and 1926 there was much debate in the Soviet Union on the draft of a marriage code, and the participation of Trotsky and the Left Opposition in these discussions illustrates their approach to the 'woman question'. In view of the fact that the government, during NEP, was unable to give women independence by providing jobs and communal facilities, the law, it was proposed, should be changed to give women more protection. According to the terms of the 1918 marriage law, women whose marriages were registered could receive, in cases of hardship, alimony from their ex-husbands; but women whose marriages were unregistered had no such right. The new marriage code included a clause recognising de facto marriage. A strong lobby opposed this change, arguing that morality would be undermined and that women would lure men into relationships and then demand financial assistance. These ideas were attacked by Trotsky, Preobrazhensky and others associated with the Left Opposition, who spoke out in favour of the recognition of de facto marriage, on the grounds that in a period of economic underdevelopment women needed all the protection they could get. But they did not suggest any practical measures that could have changed women's position even despite the unfavourable economic situation. The need for a grass-roots campaign to transform daily life along the lines that Trotsky had suggested in 1923 was not raised, and no mention was made of the importance of challenging sex roles and persuading men to take their share of the housework. Speaking in their personal capacity, members of the Left Opposition declared that industrialisation was essential in order to make women equal, but their remarks on this point were very general — they did not say that their economic policies, the policies of the Left Opposition, were alone capable of assisting women in their struggle.
The Left Opposition, as a body, took no stand on the issues raised by the 1925-26 debate; neither then nor at any time subsequently — as far as we know — did the Opposition quote the debate as an example of the connection between the fight to end the oppression of women and the political struggles of the 1920s. The Left Opposition did not discuss the proposals put forward by Alexandra Kollontai that a beginning be made to replace alimony by social provision (ie. that women be assisted by the community as a whole and not by individual men), and it did not take the opportunity to criticise the bureaucratic apparatus that could not conceive the importance of allocating funds to such projects. The Left Opposition did not identify the struggle for women's liberation as part of the battle it was fighting; it did not give the struggle for women's rights a place in its platform.
Defeat did not persuade Trotsky and his followers to look more closely at the problems of women's liberation. When, in 1930, the zhenotdely were closed by Stalin and the theoretical journal Kommunistka (Communist Woman) suddenly ceased publication, the Byulleten' Oppozitsii — the emigré organ of the Left Opposition — made no comment. Looking back in The Revolution Betrayed on the achievements of the early years, Trotsky seems to have considered that the revolution had done its duty by women and that material factors — 'society proved too poor and little cultured' (p. 145) — were solely responsible for the lack of progress in the liberation of women.
Again, Trotsky and the Left Opposition were not alone in failing to develop their understanding of women's oppression and to integrate their understanding in their general policies. The Bolshevik Party and the Comintern did not succeed in this task either. The point we are trying to make is that Trotsky and the Left Opposition, both in the theory they embraced and the action they advocated, reflected the limitations of the time.
The Transitional Programme reflects all these limitations. In fact, since the Programme gives a general survey of the political situation and is not oriented towards an examination of women's oppression, and since it is concerned with formulating concrete policy proposals, it shows Trotsky at his least sensitive to the problems of the liberation of women. On the whole the Programme ignores these problems completely. In The Revolution Betrayed women and the family did get a mention, but in the Transitional Programme there is not a word on the plight of women in the Soviet Union. In the four pages on 'The USSR and the problems of the transitional epoch', the attack of the Stalinist regime on women's rights is passed over in silence. When housewives and women workers are mentioned it is only in passing.
If the Transitional Programme had been [illegible] by a serious attempt to 'Turn to the Woman Worker' (p. 110), then it would not have referred to committees on prices (p.87) without having in some detail stressed the importance of involving working women and housewives in struggle. Similarly, the statement that 'The agricultural workers, the ruined and semi-ruined farmers, the oppressed of the cities, the women workers, housewives, proletarianised layers of the intelligentsia — all of these will seek unity and leadership' (p. 30, 96) could have been followed by some indication of the organisational forms through which women workers and housewives might have achieved unity with the proletarian struggle. In the absence of any such discussion and of any demands designed to take up the issues of women's oppression, Robin Blackburn's championship of the Transitional Programme is clearly misplaced.
His remarks are, in our opinion, unfortunate to say the least. The international communist movement is only now beginning to rid itself of the straitjacket of Stalinist teaching, which insisted that Marxism had said the last word on everything from linguistics to the sowing of spring wheat. Trotskyists, who have consistently criticised the claims of Stalinism, ought to be the first to approach critically their own traditions. If we examine the history of the Fourth International since Trotsky we find that until the rise of the independent women's movement in the Sixties the attempts of the Bolshevik Party and the Third International to develop the struggle against women's oppression were disregarded. Far from developing further the old level of understanding, the Fourth International fell below it. Apart from an excellent statement by Cannon in 'Speeches to the Party', we know of no theoretical or practical work by the FI before the emergence of the Women's Liberation Movement. There certainly must have been some, but it definitely cannot be said to have played anything more than the most marginal part in Trotskyist politics for this stretch of almost forty years.
There were brave women in the social democratic and communist parties who sought to come to an understanding of the exploitation and oppression of their sex and who did their best to push back the limits within which their parties were prepared to work. This is a history we need to recover and of which we can be justifiably proud. But we need to maintain a critical relationship with our history. Many positions taken by socialists both individually and as parties are indefensible and we should not feel that we have to defend them.
Unless we cease to defend them, mistakes of the past will be repeated. In the past many women who were attracted to radical ideas because of their awareness of their oppression as women rejected the socialist movement as only recognising the class divisions in society and as advocating a class struggle which ignored the specific oppression as women. If Marxists continue to pass over uncritically the failures of yesterday they cannot hope to be taken seriously by the women's movement.
While Marxists consider a couple of lines of generalities to be 'an important place' for women's oppression, their credibility as defenders of women's rights will continue to be questioned.
ALIX HOLT
MARTIN DURHAM
Dear Comrade,
I suppose I should be appreciative of Patrick Camiller's admission that 'it was clearly wrong' of him to have 'suggested' in his polemic against my writings on Trotsky and the Popular Front, that I was 'in any literal sense' (!) a 'forger', 'intellectual prostitute' and a 'shady character'. The more perhaps, because Scotland Yard's fraud squad might otherwise have begun turning its attention my way if such lurid allegations had been allowed to stand, reinforced by the charge in a similar vein in the Trotskyist Workers Revolutionary Party's new theoretical organ that 'Johnstone's work bears the same relationship to history as counterfeit banknotes to the paintings of Rembrandt'.
However, with regard to his assertion that I am a 'scurrilous intellectual swindler', after accepting with some hesitation that 'scurrilous' was probably 'too strong', the crusading Camiller returns unabashed and uncontrite to the attack to fix me as an intellectual swindler with a 'general method of distorting Trotsky's position'. He seeks to establish this by alleging that I twisted statements by Trotsky at the beginning of the war in my letter of protest by 'ripping quotes out of context' and 'distorting the sense of the quoted idea itself'.
Not wishing to take up too much of your space in that letter with what could be read in my Trotsky and World Revolution, I did not reproduce in full the quotations from Trotsky that I gave there to illustrate my point about their expressing 'revisionist forebodings' reflecting impatience. I had quoted there the passage where Trotsky wrote: 'It is absolutely self-evident that if the international proletariat, as a result of the experience of our entire epoch and the current new war, proves incapable of becoming the master of society, this would signify the foundering of all hope for a socialist revolution, for it is impossible to expect any more favourable conditions for it' (in Defence of Marxism, p. 15). I defy any reader after studying the full article, 'The USSR in War', in which the statements quoted occur, to deny that the views I attributed to Trotsky accurately convey the meaning.
Trotsky referred unambiguously in the passage quoted above to the international working class taking power ('becoming the master of society'). Patrick Camiller cannot legitimately explain this away by referring to other statements by Trotsky or to 'the colossal post-war rise of the proletariat' which was allegedly 'held back from revolutionary consummation by the cynical calculations of imperialist and Stalinist politicians at the tables of Yalta'. This familiar conspiracy theory of history just doesn't meet the bill. As I showed in my article, Trotsky had made it clear just after Munich that he saw the Fourth International overcoming all those forces whose main and permanent function he believed to be, internationally, to hold back revolution. Hence he wrote: 'Each new day of war will work in our favour... In the very first months of the war, therefore, a stormy reaction against the fumes of chauvinism will set in among the working masses. The first victims of this reaction, along with fascism, will be the parties of the Second and Third Internationals. Their collapse will be the indispensable condition for an avowed revolutionary movement, which will find for its crystallisation no axis other than the Fourth International. Its tempered cadres will lead the toilers to the great offensive' (Trotsky, Writings 1938-39, 1st ed., p.20).
Since, as Trotsky claimed in May 1940, the [illegible] International [illegible] in numbers [illegible] in preparation possesses infinite advantages [illegible] its predecessor's beginning [illegible] (Trotsky, Writings 1939-40, [illegible] ed., p. 45), it is difficult to understand why, if Trotsky's analyses were right, it was so pathetically powerless against 'the cynical calculations of imperialist and Stalinist politicians' which can hardly have come as a surprise to its 'tempered cadres'. But, alas, Patrick Camiller displays not the slightest interest in making a balanced estimate of Trotsky's positions; his concern is to put up a blanket defence of them. Hence, neither in his letter nor in the whole of his article against me [illegible] mistaken on any single point. He even goes so far as to sidestep and obfuscate the obvious meaning of passages like those which I have quoted as much to avoid having to make such admissions to himself, and fancies, as to others!
Patrick Camiller asserts that my interpretation of these passages betrays 'a lack of the most elementary standards of historical research'. I challenge him either to withdraw this slanderous statement or to have the courage and honesty to make the same charge against Trotsky's great and extremely sympathetic biographer, Isaac Deutscher, who can hardly be associated with 'the Stalinist [illegible]'. [illegible] The Prophet Outcast, shows that in the passages that I [illegible] Marxism was imminent: it was coming with the Second World War. If the war were not to lead to proletarian revolution in the West then the place of decaying capitalism would indeed be taken not by socialism, but by a new bureaucratic and totalitarian system of exploitation.' After referring further to Trotsky's statement in the article that, if the working class in the West were to seize power but then prove incapable of holding it, it would be necessary to recognise the socialist programme as a Utopia, Deutscher comments: 'Even for the sake of argument he never yet contemplated the possibility of an utter failure of socialism so closely; he insisted that the final "test" was a matter of the next few years; and he defined the terms of the test with painful precision' (pp.467-8).
I shall not argue the toss with Patrick Camiller about his inaccurate characterisation of Ralph Fox's portrayal of Trotsky in his Lenin, where his valuable qualities are [illegible] to an extent that is in marked contrast to the later period; nor the difference between saying that Trotsky had 'all the features of... "the petty bourgeois in a hurry"', and suggesting that he displayed the 'petty bourgeois' characteristic of impatience [illegible] nor his curious defence of proletarian as against petty bourgeois impatience.
I would, however, insist that the dogmatism and closed minds of Patrick Camiller and others like him not only prevent them from making any critical assessment of the history of Trotskyism, which indeed the whole Trotskyist movement has shied off from. It also produces the conditioned reflex that sees any fundamental criticism of Trotsky by others in the labour movement as historical distortion and intellectual swindling. Patrick Camiller reacts like the devotee of a Christian sect confronted with an embarrassing page in the Bible, who reconstrues and rationalises its meaning to fit in with established doctrine and denounces rationalist critics as instruments of the devil. (Not, of course, 'in a literal sense' — it may be conceded that personally they are not disreputable or degenerate at all — but objectively and essentially in performing a function which is profoundly provocative to faithful god-fearing folk.) Such an attitude is not only theoretically sterile, but injects an extremely unpleasant element into any controversy and is hence incompatible with your magazine's declared desire to promote real debate and 'avoid vulgar polemic and slanders'. Chuck it, Patrick!
MONTY JOHNSTONE
[illegible] we accepted our responsibility for this and [illegible] the remarks which Monty Johnstone found offensive. We were of the view [illegible] World War before the [illegible]. [illegible] Monty Johnstone refers to the 'dogmatic [illegible]'. [illegible] Editorial Board is not that one or another particular criticism of Trotsky is necessarily incorrect, but the general framework within which such criticisms are couched. For it would be naive of us as well as Monty Johnstone's supporters to imagine that all [illegible] is 'historical research'. What [illegible] a sophisticated [illegible] of Trotsky's ideas. This [illegible] be viewed as an ahistorical and hack-like [illegible] different yardstick when [illegible] Engels, Lenin — [illegible] epigones such as Dimitrov, Thälmann and [illegible]. Surely Marx [illegible] Lenin [illegible] 'doing a job on Trotsky'. Why does he concentrate on Trotsky? The [illegible] to the entire corpus of political concepts which are utilised internationally with differing emphasis by the Stalinist family. [illegible] Trotsky's ideas which answer both Moscow [illegible] the reformist exponents of 'Eurocommunism'. It is Trotsky's thought which can deal with the Gulagistes — the renegades who have abandoned Marxism and expound a new philosophy'. The reason why Solzhenitsyn has convinced them is precisely because [illegible] they were educated in the school of Stalinism (either by the PCF in the Thirties or Althusser in the Sixties). Instead of his unbalanced polemic against Trotskyism, Johnstone [illegible] pay tribute to [illegible] author of The Revolution Betrayed, for it [illegible] the strengths of that tradition which CP militants need to study in this period. If the [illegible] struggle is to move forward. This particular correspondence is now closed. We look forward to receiving Monty Johnstone's reply to the substantive arguments contained in Patrick Camiller's text.
TARIQ ALI
Another View
It was encouraging to read Carl Gardner's 'In Defence of David Bowie' in the Summer issue of International but distressing to watch him attempt to evaluate [illegible] using an unwieldy critique obviously taken [illegible]. [illegible] wanting to defend Bowie, his Low album and particularly the track on it called 'Warszawa', was because 'This is cerebral music, challenging the audience into intellectual involvement and interaction with it, not [illegible] emotionally over-loaded acceptance'. In other words, the track wasn't rock and was therefore acceptable.
He raises a number of issues in his article which I feel need answering — not least the one above — and he also operates under a number of misconceptions which I assume come from his lack of knowledge of the recording industry, of what happens in a recording studio, and — essential for a [illegible] critique — the history of rock itself, generally recognised as beginning with the release of 'Sh-boom' by The Chords in [illegible] 1954.
Since Gardner posits what he thinks is the 'correct' direction that rock should go in order to eliminate reactionary ideology, which he thinks has become structurally embedded in it, his piece needs answering in [illegible].
He says: 'A central problem in rock is the imposition of a "hierarchy" of importance between instruments/voices ... whereby the patriarchal (sexist) form of contemporary capitalism has embedded itself into the conventions and relations between various instruments and musical components.' It is on this standpoint that he praises Bowie's Low and thinks that Bowie and Eno have attempted 'firstly, a progressive re-structuring of these central relations within music, displacing (yet still using) the human voice. And secondly, a fracturing of the orthodox audio-hierarchy which maintains it'.
I would like to consider these views, first musically and then more generally.
There is an implicit suggestion that Bowie and Eno have done something new — which is certainly not true. Terry Riley did the same thing ten years ago (in fact 'Warszawa' sounds very like some of Riley's work) and more recently Philip Glass and Eno himself have released albums which fit this description. I could cite many dozens of pieces by everyone from Jimi Hendrix and Frank Zappa through to the German synthesiser bands, Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Can, Ash Ra Tempel, etc., all of which 're-structure these central elements'. The only new thing is that Bowie, a Rock 'n' Roll artist, has done it. Why this should merit specific comment I'm not sure. It's not, after all, as if this new music will reach a mass audience. As soon as RCA Records heard the tapes of Low they reduced the pressing order from 120,000 to 80,000 initial run. They knew the kids wouldn't buy it.
But this line of answer will not do, the fact is that Rock 'n' Roll itself was the answer to the structural problems Gardner mentions. Prior to 1954, popular music did indeed suffer all the maladies he mentions and much 'pop' music still does. Rock itself was a progressive and revolutionary new musical form which transformed the recording industry, the music publishing industry, and the whole face of popular culture, particularly in the United States. State control of the airwaves has always blocked its influence here. Rock 'n' Roll brought together black and white audiences for the first time, both at concerts and as consumers, and, most important of all, it was the music of young people. For the first time it was written by, performed by and recorded by young people and, of course, it was also bought by them. It met with immense resistance both in the industry and from conservative sectors of society — many radio stations banned it and films featuring it were banned by watch committees.
Rock 'n' Roll, as the creative product of a certain age group, took as its themes the social situation of that age group: problems of adolescent love, of school, of getting a job and of just being young. It evolved with it the instrumental line-up best suited to its needs: vocal (to sing the lyrics), guitar (to play the melody line), bass (to keep time), and drums (to introduce dynamics to the piece). Of these the drums were originally the least important and in fact Elvis Presley's earliest records have bass and guitar only (drums were bulky to carry round).
Gardner's suggestion that this relationship of instrumentation can be changed, and the notion that such a change would be 'progressive', is a curious one. Though the importance of these instruments in the line-up varies enormously from group to group in accordance with the abilities of the players, too much of a structural change would be impossible if the resulting music is to remain rock. Bring out the bass and you move closer to Reggae, bring out the drum beat and submerge the vocal and you move towards Disco. That's not to say that Rock is bound to this instrumentation — it can be augmented by keyboards and other instruments but guitar, bass and drums remains the classic rock line-up, partly because they are (a) inexpensive and (b) easy to play — at least initially.
This brings me to another objection to Gardner's piece. The album, or at least the tracks he discusses, does not use conventional rock instruments: Eno cannot play any instruments, he uses a synthesiser which is played one note at a time (the synthesiser has only been on the market since 1970 and even now the only polyphonic synthesisers — those that chords can be played on — are in the prototype stage). The album does include conventional tracks but the ones which Gardner finds particularly progressive are mostly synthetic. The track 'Warszawa' in fact took Eno two days to record, over-dubbing track after track on a synthesiser while Bowie was away in Paris. At a later time Bowie rushed in and dubbed the vocal tracks over it in half an hour. So much for the album which is 'obviously a collective and collaborative project with others'. If Bowie hadn't liked the backing tracks, which Eno made entirely on his own, Eno intended to buy them from Bowie and use them on his own album.
However, since the point was made, it is worth noting that the creative end of the Rock 'n' Roll industry is already much more 'socialised' than most people think in terms of the working relationships between the group, any session musicians employed, the producer, the engineer, the tape operator and other studio personnel. The creation of the album is something that they all do as a project, with clearly distinguished work roles — but usually in a very relaxed, collaborative way. As relaxed as you can be in a situation which is costing over £1 a minute.
Over the past decade there has been a big swing away from recording studios owned and operated by the recording companies — with all the attendant paperwork and union restrictions — in favour of the independent studios which have total flexibility of operation. This has recently extended to a number of studios opening in the countryside, in Wales, the Cotswolds, Oxfordshire, Sussex, where groups can go and live in. They are usually converted farms or manor houses and the musicians, the studio staff and the cooks, groundsmen and staff all live communally in that curious creative tension that goes into the making of a record (it's worth noting that almost all albums are recorded at night). In fact, Bowie's Low album was recorded at one such studio, the Chateau Herouville, a converted abbey near Paris, but there is no evidence that Low was any more of a collaborative effort than most other rock albums.
This is getting some distance from the point, which, as I see it, is this. Rock 'n' Roll wields an enormous influence on young people, in the US its influence probably surpasses even that of TV. It is the model from which they take many of their attitudes and opinions. There is no point in wishing that it was different in form than it is, only one in twenty records ever makes it — it is ultimately impossible to hype a record, the public only buys what there is a social need for. This is not the place to discuss the needs that present day popular music, in the widest sense, fills, but it is time for an appeal to come to terms with reality.
It's no good pussyfooting round the edges of rock, listening to and commenting upon the so-called progressive rock groups: Yes, Genesis, or Bowie's Low album. Rock is not intellectual, it is not cerebral. It is street level music made up of what Gardner calls 'simplistic compulsive rhythms' which adolescent youth relate to because these rhythms correspond most closely to the sexual body rhythms that the authoritarian society has suppressed and the individual has repressed. Rock 'n' Roll is progressive because it is an affirmation of life for young people in a world of authority. Gardner is trying to take even this away from them.
Right now the most progressive music being played in Britain is punk rock, the music of unemployed school leavers, most of whom still live with their parents in high rise council flats. It is the music of alienation, boredom and frustration. In America, where it is more often blacks and Puerto Ricans who are in the social situation expressed by British punks, the white kids are buying by the million the heavy metal records of such groups as Kiss, Aerosmith, Ted Nugent and Boston, none of which can offer more than a temporary respite from the alienation felt by their audiences.
The line between progressive rock and mind-numbing cook is a hard one to draw but it is a line which has to be drawn within rock, not somewhere outside in a world of cerebral experimental music appreciated only by intellectuals.
MILES