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