The Who's reputation and No Lies



Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 13 08:14:03 CDT 2004


> To be totally honest, I really haven't heard them.
> I've heard a few comedian
> digs at Pete about last years flap, but they haven't
> appeared to stick. So
> you may be having a different experience to mine.

David;

I've seen cartoons about the "tenth" Farewell tour,
articles (some posted here) etc. Still it's possible I
hear more than the average fan since I'm in a music
store named after a Who song with Who stuff on the
walls and all too likely to have Who music playing.

> It's funny. The interviews I remember are the ones
> where he derides The Who
> as some sort of smash and swagger act.

He did say that sort of thing early on, and the music
matched it, but about the time of Sell Out he had
changed his tune. There are several interview on The
Kids Are Alright for starters. The full version of the
German one about Tommy is even more so.

> opinion of what The Who
> means to Pete.

Well, you must know about Pete. It's what they meant
to him that particular moment. Ten minutes later...

> indeed. Almost as if by accident, as if the band
> were trying to sound as
> unorthodox as possible and by pure inspiration,
> created that amazing sound.

The band was defined by its limitations. Because Pete
was not a great lead player, Entwistle and Moon
stepped up. And it made history.

> songs. He's never acted as if he did.

Sometimes it's hard to do those things. It's very very
very very hard.

> listen to by the latest iteration of The Who. It's
> not like Keith and John
> left the band. They died.

And as a nod to what they brought to the band, Pete
and Rog could call the band "Who's Left" (which would
appeal to John's sense of humor) or something like
that. Would it kill them? Would it change the fan
participation?

> You mentioned the decisions made by the remaining
> members of Led Zepplin.
> Great. It's killed their later endeavors together.

They were already long since dead. Listen to Prescence
and In Through The Out Door.
 
> Maybe. My regard is for the music first. The Who's
> music, and performance of
> it are The Who to me.

Then we're on the same page. The performance has been
reduced.

> Did they
> really stand for something
> besides turning incredible songs into Rock and Roll
> sensationalism and
> blowing the both of us away in the process?

Yes. Pete's songs were about raising ourselves
spiritually, becoming more than we are now. Course,
like I said, all that's out the window now.

> What did they stand for to you? To anyone? Wasn't it
> about the music first and foremost?

I couldn't separate it. The music transmits the
message. Reading the lyrics alone doesn't inspire like
hearing it driven forward by the power of The Who.
Much like Dylan, whose harsh voice punctuates his
words.

> No I was thinking more like Dylan, Hendrix, Janis
> Joplin, The Byrds, the
> Beatles, Beach Boys (Pet Sounds) and others that
> were innovators, or spoke
> for the times.

Dylan has also compromised himself, and the others are
gone...except The "Beach Boys" who have compromised
about as much as any band could...one member calling
himself "Beach Boys Family and Friends" and two
others, the least two BTW, The Beach Boys.
Love them with Brian. After he went nuts, it's spotty
at best. I understand he's remaking Smile with a new
band. That time has passed. It might be an interesting
footnote, but I'd say it's better to leave it as a
legend.

> I still believe this is where Pete will take his
> rightful place.

It doesn't help for him to become an oldies show.

> As for the whole Southern thing, I don't sense any
> real divergent opinion
> here. I'm a Sandlapper too. It'll all work out in
> time. 

I'm not familiar with the term "Sandlapper" in regard
to SC or the South, but it's true I live by the ocean
and I assume you do too. But my situation is
temporary; I'm about 8 months from becoming a Smoky
Mountain man (if all goes well).

>  Polls closed at 8pm, sir.

Mc:

You mean the website isn't accurate?

(GASP)

That was my POINT!!! It's ironic that a site which
pretends Moore was lying is itself not telling the
truth. 

Isn't it.

> the air insisting that people not buy in to what the
> networks were saying and 
> that Florida was a toss-up.

You know, it's funny about that. The polls showed him
trailing in Florida, the exit polls showed he hadn't
won (and oddly enough have been completely accurate in
every other case since they began doing them) and in
fact the votes DID go against him...if you counted
them the way Bush's lawyers insisted they be counted,
if only they hadn't STOPPED THE COUNTING several
times.

So the funny thing is why he thought he had a chance
to win...maybe someone told him something before the
voting?

> mistaken.  This is an incontrovertible fact.

One problem you have is you have too many
"incontrovertible facts" that end up being nothing of
the sort.


"The culture of America is changing from one that has
said 'If it feels good, do it, and if you've got a
problem, blame somebody else' to a culture in which
each of us understands we are responsible for the
decisions we make in life."
     George "it's the CIA's fault" Bush

=====
Cheers         ML


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail




More information about the TheWho mailing list