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

Re: Olivia Newton Cough Drop



It's a little more complex than this, I think.  This is a really
interesting analysis, but it's based on the idea that what Roger does
IS NOT proper art, and what Pete does IS.  Maybe the dichotomy is
between "high" and "low" art, as you suggest, or maybe it's just the
diametrical difference between two different artistic temperaments. 
Remember that it is the translation and transformation of Pete's work
that defines The Who.   

Pete is a genius at baring those elements of soul that speak of human
frailties and needs and desires--but he can't carry these to The Who's
audience.  We've seen this in his years as a solo artist.  He's quietly
introspective and produces fine, intimate shows, but these aren't
anything like The Who.  Roger is the genius who takes Pete's ironic,
cock-eyed, symbolic social commentary and transforms it into the
wonderful anthems that are The Who's finest art.  Remember that The Who
is the greatest LIVE band ever.  The live stage is Roger's milieu, and
the set list is a tool he uses to create his transformation.  The
progression and flow of the songs is part of the message.  The bolt for
the toilets is Roger's criterion for success or failure of the message.

Without an audience, there is no art.  You're right that strict control
of the shows tends to stifle creativity, but The Who haven't had the
luxury of creativity just lately.  They've been building up an audience
again after years of inactivity.  It's been going extremely well. 
They've produced three excellent and highly successful tours that give
them a base to launch a new creative effort.  The current tour has been
a remarkable success considering the handicap of John's death--but it's
clear that the operant strategy was to tighten the set list.  

Pete may feel restless under this strict control, but it is working to
produce shows that have had almost uniformly excellent reviews, and
what's more, a buzz of excitement in the fans.  The Who is basically
back to Seventies level shows.  I know your analysis indicates this is
the turning point where entertainment replaced art and decay set in,
but what is required is a balance.  To reach The Who's broad audience,
both types of genius are required.  As we've said before, it is the
artistic tension between Pete and Roger's different aesthetic visions
that produces the art that is The Who.  

If they vary the set list, the intensity of the shows will drop off. 
It's a delicate thing.  There were immediate comments about the
difference in the Columbus concert, with just a change in presentation.
 Dropping "Blue, Red and Gray" into the current set list might
dramatically change the feel of the shows. 

I didn't read many votes on my question of last night about spirit
versus recording quality.  Can I assume that most fans would prefer the
high intensity shows for the remainder of this tour?  Or have The Who
made their point and now have the luxury of a little more creativity?


LB  

=====
God bless the thunder.  Love to The Who.
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com