NY Times review of MSG
tetrakarbon at hotmail.com
Mon May 24 17:34:38 CDT 2004
>Mr. Townshend and Mr. Daltrey could be writing more
>new songs, but this band has been breaking up, each
>time theoretically for good, since Moon died in 1978.
>They could change their sound, or find new stimuli, or
>be more elegant and stop publicly calling it quits.
>But having problems with being in a rock band has
>always been the Who's chemistry. Once they were uncool
>in a way that worked. Now they're just uncool.
I hate endings like this. Where did that last sentence come from? It
doesn't really seem related to anything else the reviewer has written.
Other review I have read lately have seemed this way too: while being fairly
laudatory, they then suddenly write some seemingly disconnected conclusion.
I don't mind they call the Who uncool, but are they only reffering to
publicly breaking up? I mean, they haven't been breaking up for a while
now... That was an 80's phenomenon...
Moreover, there was no _review_. It's as if the whole concert is tangental
to the commentary on the band. Isn't this supposed to be about the music?
Though, I suppose for years fans have known to trust their ears and not
critics. They're the ones who couldn't make it in Rock 'n' Roll after
-- Ned Ruggeri
Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today -
it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
More information about the TheWho