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

Fwd: Wrinkly rockers not dying before they get old



I don't think this went out the first time, so here goes...

In a message dated 96-05-02 02:57:02 EDT, DANwhoIEL writes:

<< Hello all, again-

A lot of comments about the relevancy of a 51 going on 52 (or whatever) rock
icon still trying to deliver the goods to a supposedly young audience...I
think the comments made so far have hit the mark:  PT still puts out great
material/performances, but less people are being "inspired" by him---or lets
just say not as many people are purchasing his albums...You know what I mean.
 Anyway, what we need to keep in mind is this:

Rock and roll is just starting to enjoy its second generation of existence.
 Remember-- the people who put rock music on the map are for the most part
still alive and well---and not boring.  The Beatles, The Stones, The Who,
Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton and others ensured rock music would
endure.  But remember, they were pioneers in the truest sense of the word!!
 They have no rock icons to look up to or compare their careers to.  The
surviving members of these bands are still writing the rules concerning how
long can a rock legend can continue to perform.  Twenty years from now, Eddie
Vedder and Dave Grohl could look back to the 1990's and say:  "Hey Townshend
was still touring in his fifties...why can't I??"

So to say these rock stars are too old to tour is ridiculous.  What other
rock stars are these critics comparing them to??  We NEVER had fifty+ year
old rockers touring until the 1980s (people like Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley).
 So I say again, there are no precedents set for how long a rocker can tour.
 Artists like Pete Townshend, The Allman Brothers Band, Bonnie Raitt and The
Stones are still establishing those ground rules and other precedents.

Critics also seem to forget that the listeners of rock music have grown
older, too.  And no, we don't just listen to whatever is being currently
released, nor do we just wallow  in the glories of previous decades,
either...Personally, I feel that the greatest music ever made has already
been recorded...others will certainly argue that.  But I would venture that
most fans of rock music listen to the old stuff and the "cutting edge" new
releases.

Now as far as Pete Townshend (or The Who in general) remaining relevant to
today's teens, that my friends is up to us...We probably all have younger
brothers or sisters and nieces and nephews full of angst and self doubt that
could use a healthy dose of "Substitute" or "Quadrophenia"...But don't rely
on MTV, the radio or the newspapers to keep The Who's music alive and in the
forefront of today's rock and roll scene...
 
I'll admit that classic rock radio stations have not been kind to bands like
The Who or The Rolling Stones, turning their greatest hits into almost pure
nostalgia by overplaying the same tunes.  Music critics probably are guilty
of falling into that "rock nostalgia" trap, too.  But not all of them.  The
San Francisco Chronicle reviewed the reissue of "The Who Sell Out" and raved
on and on about how "ground breaking" this album really was...and still is.
 If only certain radio stations and other critics would give the album a good
listen, they would be surprised, too.  

In closing (I can't believe I'm still writing), I know I was pretty
pessimistic about the upcoming Hyde Park show in an earlier post.  My
feelings now are this:  as long as they do the music justice and the guys
make us Who fans proud with gutty performances and musical wizardry...I'm all
for it!!  I'm still skeptical about the 20 other musicians, though...

Dan Senesky

The **Age of Apocalypse** is upon us, and his name is Busta Rhymes...watch
MTV and you will understand.

 >>


---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Wrinkly rockers not dying before they get old
 Sun Dec  7 14:20:00 PST 1997
Date:    96-05-02 02:57:02 EDT
From:    DANwhoIEL
To:      thewho@mpath.com

Hello all, again-

A lot of comments about the relevancy of a 51 going on 52 (or whatever) rock
icon still trying to deliver the goods to a supposedly young audience...I
think the comments made so far have hit the mark:  PT still puts out great
material/performances, but less people are being "inspired" by him---or lets
just say not as many people are purchasing his albums...You know what I mean.
 Anyway, what we need to keep in mind is this:

Rock and roll is just starting to enjoy its second generation of existence.
 Remember-- the people who put rock music on the map are for the most part
still alive and well---and not boring.  The Beatles, The Stones, The Who,
Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton and others ensured rock music would
endure.  But remember, they were pioneers in the truest sense of the word!!
 They have no rock icons to look up to or compare their careers to.  The
surviving members of these bands are still writing the rules concerning how
long can a rock legend can continue to perform.  Twenty years from now, Eddie
Vedder and Dave Grohl could look back to the 1990's and say:  "Hey Townshend
was still touring in his fifties...why can't I??"

So to say these rock stars are too old to tour is ridiculous.  What other
rock stars are these critics comparing them to??  We NEVER had fifty+ year
old rockers touring until the 1980s (people like Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley).
 So I say again, there are no precedents set for how long a rocker can tour.
 Artists like Pete Townshend, The Allman Brothers Band, Bonnie Raitt and The
Stones are still establishing those ground rules and other precedents.

Critics also seem to forget that the listeners of rock music have grown
older, too.  And no, we don't just listen to whatever is being currently
released, nor do we just wallow  in the glories of previous decades,
either...Personally, I feel that the greatest music ever made has already
been recorded...others will certainly argue that.  But I would venture that
most fans of rock music listen to the old stuff and the "cutting edge" new
releases.

Now as far as Pete Townshend (or The Who in general) remaining relevant to
today's teens, that my friends is up to us...We probably all have younger
brothers or sisters and nieces and nephews full of angst and self doubt that
could use a healthy dose of "Substitute" or "Quadrophenia"...But don't rely
on MTV, the radio or the newspapers to keep The Who's music alive and in the
forefront of today's rock and roll scene...
 
I'll admit that classic rock radio stations have not been kind to bands like
The Who or The Rolling Stones, turning their greatest hits into almost pure
nostalgia by overplaying the same tunes.  Music critics probably are guilty
of falling into that "rock nostalgia" trap, too.  But not all of them.  The
San Francisco Chronicle reviewed the reissue of "The Who Sell Out" and raved
on and on about how "ground breaking" this album really was...and still is.
 If only certain radio stations and other critics would give the album a good
listen, they would be surprised, too.  

In closing (I can't believe I'm still writing), I know I was pretty
pessimistic about the upcoming Hyde Park show in an earlier post.  My
feelings now are this:  as long as they do the music justice and the guys
make us Who fans proud with gutty performances and musical wizardry...I'm all
for it!!  I'm still skeptical about the 20 other musicians, though...

Dan Senesky

The **Age of Apocalypse** is upon us, and his name is Busta Rhymes...watch
MTV and you will understand.