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

Re: The Who's Popularity Peak

> You said "I'm talking about mass appeal, mass popularity, amount of 
> fans, projects, tours, band buzz, momentum, etc."  Fact is, The Who 
> had *no* momentum in 1982.  They were on a fairwell tour.  The Who 
> in 1972 were on a big time roll.  Fresh of their *most popular* albums, 
> wildly successful tours and festivals and had the momentum that made 
> you know they were going > to do great things in the future.  That's not 
> hindsight.

OK, OK.  Maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on "momentum."  Let's 
stick with the phrase "peak of popularity."

> You don't think Tommy, LAL and WN were more *popular* in their 
> day than FD, IH & WL?

No, I don't mean that.  I'm just saying that popularity of a particular album
upon its release doesn't always correlate to a band's *overall popularity.*
I'm trying to point out that even though FD & IH weren't exactly super-
popular amongst fans & critics, the band was still, IMO, at their peak in
*overall popularity.*

> I'm not.  I'm using that as evidence to refute *one* criterion that *you*
> laid down, not as the *entire* argument. 

Fair enough.

> If what came next is not indicitive of how much momentum they had, 
> then what is?

Maybe "potential momentum" is clearer.  The Who *could have* gone on
to even greater things after 1982.  The potential momentum was there.
BUT.....again I wanted to stress that, just because they *didn't* go on to
better things after 1982, that shouldn't be counted against their overall 
popularity *in* 1982.

> No, I'm not.  I'm talking about their popularity.  Sure, lots of people 
> went to see them and were listening to their albums in those years, but 
> they was also a lot of opinion that they were over the hill.  That's *not* 
> something I'm seeing only in hindsight.

True, true.  That's a valid argument *against* my '79 - '82 theory.  But,
does it disprove my theory?  Many loyal Who fans were outraged when
TOMMY came out.  Gone was their loveable "singles WHO."  Like
OX said, they became snob-rock.  So that's one of *my* arguments 
against the '69 - '71 theory. 

> How is it hindsight if they *announced* they were breaking up?

They never announced they were breaking up in '82.  They said they were
going to no longer engage in long, drawn-out touring.  The Who were 
still a band until Pete said he was finished with it in 1983.  He gave per-
mission for the others to carry on using the name.

> OK, so you've established that there were more rock fans in 1980 than 
> 1970. But were they more inclined to be fans of The Who, or was there 
> just a new generation of rock fans who followed the hundreds of acts that 
> emerged in the 70's as well as the "founding fathers" of the British Invasion?  
> I think it's the latter.  

See, I think it's the former.  I think more fans were inclined to get on The
Who bandwagon from '79 - '82 because - A. The band had a lot going 
on in those years, more so than most, & B. Yes, there *were* more rock 
fans around by '79 to get *into* The Who.  So, I guess it's a mixture of
both your assumptions.  More inclination & more fans.  But the inclination
is key.   

> So, if your point is that you could find a greater number of people to 
> describe themselves as fans of The Who in 1981 than 1971, that may 
> well be true, but I thought you were saying something more significant
> than that.

No, actually number of fans is closer to what I meant.  That & what the
band had going on at the time.

> No, it's far better to base your whole argument on one magazine award,
> right?  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

You devil, you!  My RS comment was meant only to quickly counter
Mark's assertion.  Remember the *other* evidence I gave:

1. Death of Moon 
2. Decision to carry on
3. Giant '79 tour
4. Tragedy in Cincinnati
5. TKAA movie released
6. QUAD movie released
7. Giant Farewell tour

- SCHRADE in Akron

The Council For Secular Humanism