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

Re: antics



> I've never seen it as an "antic".  It was a true expression of frustration and anger, which as we know is what The Who is all about.
> Sure, at some point after incessant "smash your guitar" calls from the audience, it became part of the act.
> But, it was genuine at the beginning.
> And, that's what the tickets at that time watching The Who could understand and identify with.
> You can't script that sort of thing, like a strategy for 
> competing with other bands.
> It just happened.

Just listen to Pete tell the story of the first smashed guitar.  The next show was packed to see the guy who smashes guitars, and thus it was born.  Pete was able to summon the anger to unleash his fury on the guitar as a genuine act, but it's naiive to think he didn't also do it because it helped the Who gain attention.  In TKAA, he even spoke of when Kit Lambert told him to smash a guitar to impress a promoter, only to find out he didn't see it and he had to smash another one at the next show.  That's certainly orchestrated at least in part.  

Yes, the original smash was precipitated by an accident then fueled by anger.  However, let us consider that Pete was already doing wild stuff, like scraping his guitar strings on the mike stand, and may even have started the windmills, though more subdued than in later years, prior to guitar smash (not sure on this one, though).  The antics I was really referring to refer to are what they did as a band in its entirety.  

It is not a Who criticism, it was a fact of life.  They were trying to get out of the gargantuan shadows of The Beatles and The Stones, and did so through a combination of in your face music and in your face live shows.  That's why I love them.  The only really in your face hard rock band with amazing depth and substance, as well.  What other band could obliterate a stage set and then make an album like Quadrophenia?  

Mc