Various stuff (long ramble)

[Mike Mooney <m.j.mooney@bradford.ac.uk>]

Well, this list has certainly perked up in the last few days! Lots of
interesting threads started -  here are some random responses off the top of
my head...

Dave (?) wrote:

>
>Beatles Anthology: Hype or hope?
>

Both. To put this in a Who perspective, how would you feel if there was
suddenly a *huge* flood of unreleased Who material made available? Yes, of
course, as hardcore fans you'd be delighted. BUT...what if Polydor/MCA were
pushing this onto the 'unconverted' as the first Who material they'd heard?
(i.e. putting the might of corporate PR behind - say - 'Who's Missing')?
You'd rather they emphasised SellOut/Tommy/LAL/Next/Quad wouldn't you? As a
Beatles fan I feel that way about the 'Anthology' - it *isn't* an anthology,
it's a collection of stuff from the cutting-room floor - golddust to the
already converted, but not core repertoire, and it should not be marketed
otherwise, it will only cheapen the artists' reputation. 

Concerning the drugs debate, Jeff Williams wrote :

<snip> 
>
>I'm not gonna yell at users and am not gonna glorify being clean and
sober... >Extremes in both areas are about equally distasteful for me... So
if you yell >at me I'm not gonna respond.  But I will respect that you got
where you are for >reasons of survivial and self-preservation....
>

I agree completely. I think Jeff's reasoned comments should be the end of
this (admittedly interesting and pertinent) thread. 

On 'White City', Marty Secero wrote: 

<snip - a moving and fascinating account of how 'White City' got him through
cancer therapy> 

Thanks for putting things into perspective, Marty. this illustrated for me
better than any other posting why music (whatever your chosen favourite is)
is so important to us. And...

>
>I think that Pete's main writing weakness since the WHO's breakup has been
his >overriding need for context for everything he does. The great thing
about Empty >Glass and CHinese Eyes is that the context for these two albums
(Pete's >personal breakdown and subsequent triumph over his demons) is not
overt or >forced. For the past 10+ years, Pete has felt the need to create
fictional >scenarios (sometimes part autobiographical) in which to present
his songs, >whether it be Jimmy (the White City main character), Hogarth
(his Iron Man >character), Ray Highsmith (PsychoDerelict), or even Tommy for
that matter. 
>
>I do wish Pete would writing from the hip again. I feel that he's still got 
>another Empty Glass in him. Take away the context, and y'know what? You still 
>have some fucking brilliant songs, Pete. 
>

Yes, yes, yes! I do wish PT would stop writing rock operas, screenplays,
whatever he wants to call them, and get back to writing 'from the hip' as
Marty put it. I think part of the problem has been the decline in the
singles market as a medium for new ideas (see also various listers comments
on the singles being the weakest cuts off the albums since 'Quad', and my
closing comment on 'My Generation' below). When Pete has a lot to say on a
lot of different subjects, he comes up with loads of good songs.
Synchronicity being what it is, these often form a fine suite of songs with
a (perhaps unintended) set of unifying themes, good examples being 'Who By
Numbers', 'Empty Glass' and 'Chinese Eyes'. The minute there's a stated
'plot', the 'padding' starts to creep in (often better than most artists'
best work, but usually less than 100% for our Pete).

On the Who continuing, Ian Derby wrote:

>
>I wouldn't mind seeing Pete work with Roger or John again in the studio
(either >together or seperate) as long as it's not another Who project.
Something I'd >really like to see is a Pete Townshend/Ray Davies solo album,
in the same >spirit as Rough Mix, with a tour to follow.
>

Agreed again. They still sound good together - but that doesn't mean they're
The Who any more. As to Davies, if you want to get away from the Beatles
comparison, RD/Kinks have some strong parallels with PT/Who: started out of
the same London mod scene, hard-riffing 'outrageous'
R&B-transmuting-into-rock quartet, fist-fights in band, one main songwriter
with another who got the odd album track, long career, tortured
intellectual, fond of  a drink, etc. etc. 'X-Ray' is well worth a read if
you want to get the feel of the pop/rock scene in the 60s and 70s. Dunno if
a PT/RD 'Rough Mix' would work though (incidentally, can someone tell me if
'Rough Mix' has been released on CD here in Britain? I'm desperate to get a
copy to replace my worn-out vinyl.)

And finally, Mark Leamn wrote:

>
>And of course The Beatles aren't better than The Who. MY GENERATION changed
>Rock music more than any other album to date. Shattered the Chuck
>Berry/Blues hold on RnR, it did. From that point on, anything went.
>

And (sigh) The Who aren't 'better' than The Beatles, either, just different
(and complementary). But I agree with the rest of it - with one major
alteration - MY GENERATION changed rock music more than any other *SINGLE*
to date (the rest of it is true). In 1965, the only albums that meant
doodly-squat (whether you liked it or not) were by the B**tl*s. The first
Who album to have a real impact was 'Tommy' (great though 'Sell Out' was).
But as a *singles band* (and especially as a *live* band) in the
mid-sixties, The Who were truly revolutionary. 

(Gasp!) Enough!

English Mike