Re: homogeneity

[Phil McRevis <legalize@xmission.com>]

In article <38477BEC.CC90EA64@labyrinth.net>,
    "Whooooo!" <whoooo@labyrinth.net>  writes:

> Well I'll give you this: you seem to be a cohesive bunch. Perhaps homogeny
> is what you prefer. I wonder whether it was the retirement piece that
> caused the glitch in my posting privileges? :)

Homogeneity?  No, certainly not.  That should be blatantly obvious from
all the "this song not that one" type of discussion that erupted from
the "Who's Worst" thread.

You can have your opinion that The Who are a "retirement band", but I
would disagree with that assessment 2,000%.

You mentioned in your message those who were at the Vegas show as the
"Vegas disciphiles[sic]".  I suppose the religious adjective is meant
to imply we were like beings in a religious frenzy devoid of all
rational capacity, describing the experience as a quasi-mystical
journey of galactic proportions.  It wasn't that way for me, I wasn't
in the first row ;-).  But seriously, just what was meant by that?

I can't speak for what others said of the show, but I know myself that
I told people in line at Chicago similar sentiments to what I posted on
this list.  That the show was LOUD, it was ELECTRIC and it that the
band hadn't played like that for 20 years.  Just the 5 of them, no
backup singers, etc., and that Zak Starkey (I hope I'm spelling his
name right) fit in very well with the boys.

Now, its 1999 so 20 years ago would be 1979, not 1969 (Woodstock) or
1970 (Leeds) or 1971 (Lifehouse), but 1979 (Who Are YOu, post KM w/KJ
era).  I didn't get to see them in '79, but from some boots I have of
that tour I would say that my comparison was accurate.  Just that Pete
wasn't drunk this time ;-).  (I have a boot where Pete slurs the words
on a song and to my ears anyway, it sounds like he had been drinking
and just had a very "relaxed" set of lips and tongue that night.)  On
legitimate release you can get the "Concerts for Kampuchea" -- this was
a vinyl double album release with one album side dedicated to the
Who from this time.  This was a benefit concert arranged by Paul
McCartney who personally asked Pete if the Who would play and Pete
agreed.  (Was this the first charity show the Who ever performed?)

So, in all fairness I think my description of the show was accurate.  I
don't know if I talked to you in Chicago or not and I don't know who
else described Vegas to you, but I think my description accurately
foretold the kind of experience you could reasonably expect to see in
Chicago.

I *did* reiterate that I heard a story that Roger was quoted in the
press as likening the show to "Live at Leeds II", but this was done to
convey a sense of how good a time the *band* had at Vegas, not to imply
that Pete was going to bring out the Gibson SG with a powercord
retromod experience from the 70s.  Knowing the band was enjoying
themselves just as much as the audience enhances a concert, especially
when its band you have investigated as much as some of us have ;-).

But how realistic is it to expect a bunch of guys in their 50s who've
lead pretty party-heavy lives to perform like they did in their 20s?

I'm sorry if the Who didn't live up to your expectations, but if you
were expecting an experience like you've seen from the Who at the peak
of their touring career I'd say that was a little unrealistic.
--
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>	Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,     
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT     
legalize@xmission.com	<http://www.thewho.net>