[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re[2]: Before I Get Old



ML, re:
          
>but the book is still the best of what's out there. Until, as someone said, 
>Townshend writes one. Then again, has he got the perspective?
          
He may or may not. I'm looking forward to JAE's Who book when he's finished 
writing it...
          
wf
-----------------end original message------------

I, too, am interested in Entwistle's book.  However, it's dubious that it'll 
ever see the light of day.  I mean, the man has had more than enough time on his
hands in the last decade to produce a bio.  Over 10 years to work on one book is
plenty of time (we're not talking WAR AND PEACE here).

I don't know what purpose a Townshend bio of the Who would serve (we have enough
of his thoughts in so many places to get his perspective on the band; his 
ROLLING STONE interviews alone can serve as an adequate text).

Let it not be said that Marsh's bio is crap.  It's not; rather, it was written 
by a man who had an axe to grind with the band.  He was fairly vocal about his 
displeasure with the band for going on after Moon died.  Also, he and Townshend 
got into a published row in RECORD magazine at the start of the 82 tour over how
the tour was being handled (sponsorship, most notably, was at issue).  This came
before ...GET OLD was published.  So, while I don't ask that the biographer love
his subject, I have to be suspicious about the bio on the heels of all this. I 
still find myself going to Barnes's book more than Marsh's.  Perhaps if Barnes's
had had someone ghostwrite his thoughts, MAX. R&B would be even more readable.  
When I want critical analysis of the Who, I try to provide it myself, or go 
searching for my answers, rather than turn to Marsh to supply it for me.

Obviously, Marsh remains a Who fan because of the liner notes he supplied for 
THE WHO SELLOUT.

--Jim