Fwd: Olivia Newton Cough Drop

[thewho rocks <leb905@xxxxxxxxx>]

Oops.  I seem to have cross-posted again, but I've lost the quoted
message.  Here's the whole thing.

keets


>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

>
>> This whole set list discussion and
> the supposed slagging of O & S
> mistakes the situation.
> 
> Simply, in 1974 The Who stopped
> being artists and became entertainers.
> 
> The boys sealed their fate when they
> failed to rehearse properly Quad (sans
> fistfight I might add) and failed to
> have a secret university tour to work
> out its quirks like they did with Who's Next.
> 
> The failure of Quad, particularly in
> Pete's mind, meant an end of The Who as
> a vehicle for social change, commentary etc.
> ART AS PETE STUDIED IT.
> It also gave Roger greater control over the
> set list which meant more Shepherd's Bush
> enjoyment for all.
> 
> What separates The Who from all other
> musical groups is Pete's desire to have
> the band reflect, chronicle and amplify
> an emerging class consciousness (an
> aesthetic dimension, if you will) that was
> the 60s and its post-war generation of
> reckoning.
> 
> The Who "decayed" when the band
> became entertainers and not artists;
> when class consciousness became
> conspicuous consumption (with the
> alliteration sponsored by Coca-Cola).
> 
> As a result, The Who as entertainers,
> gave the good folks of New York in 1974
> a greatest hits series of concerts that
> did not showcase their latest work, Quad.
> Quad, in its failure, ended the potential
> for adventurous set lists and bold new
> musical excursions.  The Who were
> stuck on The Rock in the pissing rain . . .
> 
> That being said, as I watched Pete's
> interview at the end of Essen 1981
> this morn, how it is a shame that as
> Pete repeatedly said that The Who
> aren't perfect that the theme of the
> sermon was being missed by the
> Holiday Campers.  The Who were
> merely entertainers and no longer able
> to express, reflect and amplify the ethos
> of the working class English kids who
> were rebelling.  That is now someone's
> else's job (which unfortunately no one else
> has been able to fill).
> 
> The set list will never change until Roger
> gives in to the idea that The Who are
> artists and should be allowed to strive
> even if they fail.  Perhaps, the death of
> John, just like the death of Keith (of
> whom I feel understood Pete's dilemna
> better than Roger or John, who just
> wanted to play loud whether it was rock
> or baroque), will liberate the boys and
> give them some freedom.  Perhaps, these
> deaths have allowed the audience to see
> something that they didn't want to see,
> The Who aren't immortal and perfect.
> 
> The Who have been forced to give
> the fans what they want, instead of,
> having the freedom of playing Won't
> Get Fooled Again in the middle of the
> set when it was first played live.
> 
> Bathroom breaks determine the set
> list and not artisitic choices.  All in
> trying to make their idol worshipping
> audiences happy and give the paying
> blokes a night off from their day to day
> concerns.  Grand Entertainment, yes,
> but not the backdrop where A Quick One
> can be composed.
> 
> Ultimately, this, IMHO, is why Pete wanted
> to "kill" The Who in the late 70s; there
> was no there, there.
> 
> Tommy gave the sermon, no one listened
> and we rebelled.  Tommy again was left
> alone, insular and in pain.  But no one
> cared because Tommy was now a
> commodity and the show must go on. . .
> 
> "the horror . . . . . the horror  . . ."
> 
> Goldenthroat
> 
>  


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