The Who's reputation



Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 14 08:42:53 CDT 2004


> Exactly, Pete's songs. They are what Pete
stood/stands for. When it comes to
philosophy, I separate the band from the man.

David:

OK, well...I'm half and half on that. I'm with you on
Pete's songs, because they're also in his solo work.
But...I don't separate it from The Who. The energy
given to the Who versions gives the message more
urgency. When Pete performs his songs, they seem more
ethereal.

> The other guys hardly knew
what Pete was trying to say half the time.

Apparently. The information that's come out of the
Lifehouse sessions suggests it, I don't know why they
couldn't understand it because it's not THAT
complicated.

> I'm sure you saw the Sadler's Wells performance of
Lifehouse. Was this a
compromise by Pete to you?

Actually, yes. It's a lessor version of what was
intended. It's fun to watch, and I like it a lot, but
it's a Pete solo show, and not as focused or powerful
as a Who show. Since they didn't perform Lifehouse
live, I can only go by the Tommy demos VS the Who's
live performance.

> of his own musical expression. Many fans never delve
into deeper meanings,
they just want kick ass rock and roll.

That's true, but we can hope they get past that
eventually. I mean, when I first listened to The Who I
was young (I Can See For Miles was the first thing I
remember hearing) and it wasn't about meanings to me
then. I remember using Live At Leeds to get through a
bad break-up period (it was easy to get lost in the
sheer power of the music and not think about the
girl). But repeated listenings to Tommy and then Who's
Next got the light through.

> Strangly, for me at least, it is Daltrey's
interpretations that make these
lyrics resonate so strongly in my soul. The man in the
pulpit reading from
the divinely inspired book if you will.

I don't think that's strange, it's exactly how I see
it too.

> I may begin to
agree that without Moon and Entwistle, stadium thunder
is lost. But there is nothing anyone can do about that
now.

Respect the loss! By acknowleging it with a slight
name change, perhaps. The Who was as you say
thunder...raw power. The shows now are very clean and
neat...that's not The Who!
I used to brag about how The Who took their studio
work and changed it completely to play it live. LAL is
a great example of this. But after the loss of Keith,
the shows have become closer and closer to the studio
versions...a slide into medocrity.

> So Arnold Palmer still make the Seniors rounds and
doesn¹t even win. Will
that diminish his legacy to golf such that he should
he just throw down his clubs?

Well, it certainly lowers his win/loss record if
nothing else. But Golf is not Art...and I'll probably
get hammered by someone for saying that.

> What I think you mourn is the loss of the Rock and
Roll ethos. Were Keith
and John still with the band, I dare say you'd still
mourn. Rock is dead.

Yes, it died in 1973-4. It's been recycling since
then.

> Long live the music. 

Agreed.

> Really, it's apparently your livelihood.

Yeah, I own a music store in Myrtle Beach (Generations
Used CDs), the ONLY non-corp music store left in fact.

> It's a nickname for South Carolinians. Especially
from the lower part of the state.

An area I haven't spent much time in. Unless it was
staying in Beaufort for Savannah's Saint Patrick's Day
party.
If you're up my way, stop in!


"Natural gas is hemispheric."
   George "whatever" Bush

=====
Cheers         ML


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 




More information about the TheWho mailing list