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

Re: Are we musical snobs?



KLW writes:
> But I must add that both jazz and rock suffered from the same thing that I 
> believe ended their Golden Eras: Marketing.

> As soon as a rock musician wearily makes the inevitable statement "I am an 
> enterTAINer" then I usually start looking for the crap to begin flowing.  
> This statement confirms that they have:
 
> 1)  Made enough money so they're not worried about eating anymore
> 2)  Accepted their role as a commodity and not an artist
> 3)  Listened to their ego-puffers so much they begin to believe their own 
> shit don't stink (the big hair and weird suits usually start showing up at 
> about this time)

> I think what draws us to the Who is that Pete lasted longer than most when 
> it came to retaining his artistic integrity.  While his original 
> motivations may have been his nose and getting laid, it very quickly became 
> a lot more than that.  And until Moon died, that integrity (however painful 
> for him) remained the primary focus of what he was doing.  John Lennon is 
> another example of an artist who retained his integrity far longer than 
> most.  Neil Young is another.

I believe it was Dave March in _Before I Get Old_ who claimed that this
happened to The Who with the decision to go on without Moon in late 78.  He
claimed this was the point where the band crossed over from being rock and
roll artists to being entertainers.  I can't say I'd disagree.

It was really Pete who made the transition.  Roger had the entertainer
mindset long before Moon died, and John never really seemed to enter into the
equation when setting direction for the band.

I think that Pete has operated in both camps since then.  The 89 tour and
the Broadway Tommy are clearly entertainment oriented, while most of his
solo work has been, or at least attempted to be, breaking new ground
artistically.


Dave Elliott