Cincinnati

[daelliott@lucent.com (Dave Elliott)]

JB-------2TheWHO! writes a few days ago:
>With all due respect, I fear that you totally missed the point in your quite
>bitter reflections over what you discerned to have been the reaction of PETE
>TOWNSHEND to the tragedy in Cincy, as reflected in your comment, a small
>portion of which I have cited below..(MORE)

I guess that's your opinion, but I've understood everyone's point so far.

>Dave, I can see the perspective from which you are reacting, and IF that was
>applicable in this case, which it isn't, I would be the first to agree with
>you. Your interpretation would have been intelligent and reasonable if that
>had been the quoted reaction from almost any other ROCK STAR, say a MICK
>JAGGER or DAVID BOWIE, and I think that the problem here is that you do not,
>as of yet, understand TOWNSHEND, (and it takes a while to really understand
>him - like most of those rare, once or twice in a lifetime GENIUS-ARTISTS).

Hmm...
I have been a fan of The Who for nearly 30 years, own all of their
commercial releases, and have read nearly all of the published interviews of
band members.  I suspect I understand Pete as well as anyone who doesn't
actually know the guy.  Since I don't speak out of ignorance, I suppose that
makes me stupid and unreasonable by your definition.  Thanks.


- - long diatribe on Altamont deleted -

>If you've read up on Cincy, you are surely aware that the band, I mean THE
>WHO, had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER that anything untowards had happened until they
>had left the stage for the night. And this was not lack of concern, there was
>nothing that, from the stage, could have been seen..it was all over. MICK
>knew all about it BEFORE it happened and didn't give a F*#k, PETE TOWNSHEND
>had no such opportunity....

So, what's your point?  I never blamed Pete or the band for what happened.

>But you main point seems to be your evaluation of his reaction afterward. And
>if you relatively NEW to the legions of WHO fans, you're having interpereted
>PETE's reaction as you did is perfectly understandable, and given that
>interpretation, I too would have felt much the same way you did.

I suspect that if you had been in my shoes (or nearly lost your shoes, as I
did) you would have felt the same way I did.

I grew up with The Who.  Quad was released when I was 16, and seemed to
perfectly relflect what I was going through.  WBN was released as I headed
off to college, trying to deal with the loneliness and friendlessness of a
new start.  Again, it was a perfect reflection of what I was going through.
After spending more than a decade feeling as if Pete Townshend understood my
life completely, Cincinnati came as a dramatic dose of reality.

- - lot's of dialogue centered on Mick Jagger deleted -

>So if you don't yet fully understand PETE TOWNSHEND, that this guy is VERYU,
>VERY different from most of the "rock ledgends" out there - that PETE is
>utterly FOR REAL and, at least when it comes to matters so tragic, he is
>incapable of hiring a PR guy to tell him just the right amount of remorse to
>display..exactly what to say...When you see someone like that, like PETE, WHO
>refuses to play the game (which would be the worst possible slap in the face
>of the parents and friends of the kids who died), WHO had no control over
>what happened (It was a promoter's screw up which happened long before the
>WHO even started playing), when you see someone like PETE care enough that he
>didn't put on the expected act, didn't say the mandated words from the PR
>types...Then you are seeing a profoundly caring and utterly bona fide artist
>who finds emotions such as caring and grief far too signifigant to play act
>away, a la Mick Jagger, for a movie camera...

I suppose it'a an OK attribute to be a brutally honest person.  And, if Pete
had said the "right" things and then showed later that he really didn't care
at all, I suppose I would have felt even more betrayed.  But I don't see how
you can make the leap saying his honest response proves he is "profoundly
caring".  There is no connection between the two.

>Finally, forgive me, but I can best close this with a personal example. 

- - story about Tom Clancy dedicating a book to his father deleted -

>And for months we heard nothing more, but when the "next book" came out (this
>was several titles ago), sure enough, CLANCY kept his word, and not only did
>the dedication, but wrote the dedication using some of the most moving words
>I had EVER read about my father from anyone. And to this day, when I have
>occasion to reflect back on my own loss, it's TOM CLANCY's
>"PETE-TOWNSHENDISH" reaction that I remember..and it's the only one that
>means anything to me..

Suppose Tom Clancy had said, "Your father's death reminds me that my fans
are people, not just consumers.  But I'm not going to dwell on it, because
when people are dead, they're dead."  Then he followed up by NOT doing
anything else, and never mentioning it again.  That, IMO is a better
analogy.  Would that have made you feel good?  Whether or not Pete really
meant it to come out that way, that's how many of the people who were there
(me included) took it.

I suspect that the difference in opinion over what Pete said in the
aftermath of Cincinnati is really a frame of reference thing.  I was there,
so I am probably too close to the subject to be objective.  Those posting on
this so far were not, and they were probably not close enough to completely
relate to my point of view.  The truth about Pete's real feelings probably
doesn't matter to most fans, and maybe it shouldn't (unless you are looking
to PT as a role model).

And speaking of points, my original point about how I felt about Cincinnati
(which was the original question posed by someone else) was that I lost my
naivety regarding heroes.  We seemed to have gotten bogged down in arguments
over whether I mid-understood Townshend's reaction, which is not what I had
intended with the original post.  We have indeed spent a lot of time trying
to interpret 17 year old quotes.


Dave Elliott

P.S.  I originally sent this a few days ago, but screwed it up.  Since I
never saw it on the digest, I'm resending.  Apologies if it ends up showing
up twice.