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

Re: The Who's Popularity Peak

----- Original Message ----- From: "Schrade, Scott"

> Ha!  No, not at all.  You seem confused by the question so I'm trying
> to make it more understandable for you.

Yes, I got very confused when you put forth a question and then had to
repeal most of it because you couldn't defend your position.  But, you're
right, it is better to focus on the main point.

> Two-nil?  Two-six, more like it!

Clean up on aisle five.  Someone's pulled a 'six' out of their ass.

> Were The Who more popular in 1972 or 1982?


> When did The Who reach their peak in popularity?


> You & Mark can't seem to look beyond the band's *artistic peak* & see
> that, while that era was huge for the band, they were actually *more*
> popular & had *more* fans by the '79 - '82 era.

Their artistic peak was 1973, in my opinion.  See, I know the difference.

If you're going to insist on simple quantity of fans being the decisive
factor, I'm going to have to ask to see some numbers.  But that's rather
boring and often misleading.  You've said "It has to be sensed (?) - argued
with evidence but not strictly relying on sales statistics, chart numbers,
etc." and then "No, actually number of fans is closer to what I meant."  Now
I am getting confused.

I think your first statement was a lot more true than your second.  In my
opinion, gross numbers of tickets or albums sold is pretty unconvincing.
The popularity relative to the rock music audience is what I rate.  Plus,
depth of popularity needs to be considered, too.  By those measures, '69-'72
wins, hands down.

> Right!  And like Jon has pointed out, they *still had* that '69 - '71
> popularity behind them in '79 - '82, PLUS!!! - PLUS!!! - PLUS!!! - the
> legions of new fans they had picked up along the way!!!  Me, you, & Jon
> included!!!

Hmm.  John said they "spent" the popularity capital they had built up during
the period you mention.  I agree with that.  I confess to coming out of that
period a little jaded and disappointed that I had not been old enough to be
there for earlier greatness.

> No, no, no.  The Who gained some *notoriety* from non-rock fans in '69,
> that's about it.

So, Matt's wrong, too?

> > And, this is what this is all about, isn't it?  Your desire to validate
> > the Kenney Jones period of The Who?
> Ha!  That statement really reveals *your* desire to *invalidate* the
> Kenney era, despite what history shows.

I don't need to, it's the common perception.  I probably like FD/IH more
than a lot of people here.  But it's not about artistic merit, is it?  Or is
it?  I'm just pointing out why I think you're biased in favor of that
period.  Go ahead, deny it.

> And you are so quick to dismiss the *two* theatrical releases the band
> had in 1979.

Not at all, that's why I conceded your only point.

> Bollocks!  '79 - '82 was their peak in popularity!

It was a (secondary) peak.

> We'll probably have to wait till July when more of the snow in VT melts.

Plus, he's still fighting with Mark about The Kinks!

> Ha!  You've made a strong case but I still think I'm right!

And that's why we love you.  Hey, at least you got us talking about The Who

Jim M