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

Re: Quad: the next degeneration, WhobanterPC, Quad purist thinking



>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 12:02:15 -0400
>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
>Subject:
>
>> Cappuccino Joe is what Pete is calling this new version of Quad.
>
>Brian:
>
>This does not sit well with me.

I'm always willing to be proven wrong, but I don't see it either.  "Dr.
Cappucino Joe and Mr. Joseph"?? :-P.  Is Quadrophenia going to turn into a
mere rant against yuppie Starbuck's-patronizing drones?

>> being "beaten up" by blacks (at least they left the line
>> in..."blacks" itself verges on the non-PC)
>
>I don't know...it seems that even a mention of a black person is non-PC?
>Isn't leaving them out completely just as non-PC?

My quibble was with the word, not the reference. It's QUITE PC to put in a
mention of blacks, but "African-Americans" seems to be the most widely
accepted term.  Obviously that wouldn't work for at least two reasons: Quad
isn't just about America ("African-Englanders", anyone?); and it's
impossible to work that into the song "And you get frightened by the
Af-ri-can-Am-er-i-cans"??  I don't think so.  So we're left with the
vaguely objectionable word "blacks".  But there are bigger fish to fry (cf.
the following).

>> and cold"??  Couldn't SOMEONE have some up with something the didn't
>> involve repeating a word?
>
>Yeah...it's so "Loverboy."

Or (from my all-time worst list): "...give nothin' to the Tin Man, that he
didn't, didn't already have." :-P


>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 12:35:35 -0400
>From: "O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>
>
>I don't even see "lesbians & queers" or "beaten up by blacks" as un-PC.
>Hell, I've always thought that the lesbian and queer line was in defense of
>the gay community.

Couldn't agree more.  But the line is rife with opportunities for the
"perpetually and professionally offended" to become more so.

And "beaten up by blacks" clearly was directed at the
>Mods who were (unless I'm mistaken) a white phenomenon in the UK.  It's just
>real.

Exactly so.


>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:00:25 -0400
>From: "Jeff House" <whocasa@hotmail.com>
>
>What the hell is wrong with changing the lyrics, arrangements, song order,
>instrumentation, musicians, etc.?  I really don't understand the gripe.

None of these are necessarily wrong.  I loved the orchestral arrangements
Michael Kamen put together for "Daltrey Sings Townshend", e.g.  I loved the
musical reworkings for the movie "Tommy", which obviously involved a bunch
of different musicians and instrumentation changes.  Changing the lyrics is
probably the most dangerous change to make, and I don't like the direction
of the changes that have been reported in the one song so far.

>How is this type of purist thinking different from saying that opera
>shouldn't be combined with rock, James Brown songs shouldn't be reworked,
>blues should not be played on electric instruments by white people, The Who
>shouldn't exist without Moon, Pete shouldn't play 'thin' Fenders or use drum
>machines, John is too trebly, Britney shouldn't sing 'Satisfaction', Coke
>should not change their formula, the Designated Hitter is evil, old men
>should not write rock songs, etc.?

You're not arguing the issue.  The issue is not that Quad should not be
changed, but that the particular changes that have been reported so far are
bad.

>I am serious.

So am I.

>Quadrophenia is not just an album to me.  It is a set of
>thoughts and feelings that comforts me.

I say it is a collection of music that EVOKES thoughts and feelings.  Those
feelings (emotions) come from your evaluation of the music (sound and
lyrics) recorded on the album.  The music on the vinyl is the same for
everyone; the emotions it evokes vary with the individual's values, and if
it evokes simliar emotions in you as in other people, that indicates that
those other people share at least some of your values...hence the community
oft noted among Who fans (of course, this applies to fans of many different
types of art, not just The Who).  Thus, changing the raw material can
change the emotional response.  In myself, the proposed changes evoke an
emotion of, oh, let's call it dismay.

>Why shouldn't Pete make changes to Quad so it can be presented in another
>medium, where it can reach more people, and make them feel as good as it
>makes me feel?

It's pretty clear that Quad will have to change if it's put on a stage, but
it's not necessarily clear that the lyrics have to change, and if they do,
I don't like the direction of those changes reported so far. Let's look at
the specifics:

>People die from getting old
>Dying alone, alone and cold

vs.

People die from growing old
Or left alone becase they're cold

A) Politically:  With all due respect to all concerned, I don't see what
was so terrible about the original that it had to be changed in the first
place

B) Artistically:  given that it WAS changed (and I would still dearly love
to know why), IMO the replacement is simply shoddy.  Repeated word (TWICE!!
-- "dy(ing)" and "alone" -- in two lines), and doesn't scan:  "dyING alone,
alone and cold."  You shouldn't have to alter the meter to accomodate your
amendment.

>If you complain you disappear
>When you speak out you live in fear

vs. the original:

If you complain you disappear
Just like the lesbians and queers.

A) Politically:  Obviously something was considered "wrong" with the
original line or it wouldn't have been changed, and I'll go out on a limb
and say that it was considered offensive.  As the worthy Kevin has already
noted, it's actually in support of the gay community, and taking it out
implies the Quad production team doesn't trust its audience to figure that
out.  But The Who was always about challenging their audience, giving them
the best they had and trusting the audience to rise to it..."No other band
has given their audience so much, nor demanded so much from it."

B) Artistically, again the substitution is a substantially weaker line.  It
simply REITERATES the sentiment of the original first line..."If you make
yourself heard there are bad consequences".  It's the exact same idea put
two different ways on successive lines.  The second line doesn't go
anywhere, it doesn't take us anywhere we haven't already been, and as such
it induces momentary confusion and boredom.  I'm sure you'll agree The Who
is/was the antithesis of boredom.

>And now you're frightened of the blacks
>Who, though they worked, still got the sack

vs

And you get beaten up by blacks
Who, though they worked, still got the sack

A) Politically:  The amendment draws undue attention from the knowing
listener (which we all are) on the original line simply by its elimination.
What's wrong with suggesting that you (the listener) have been or might be
beaten up by blacks (who, according to the line, are apparently justly
angry)?  The Quad production team team knows...I don't. The original could
even be seen as a oblique statement in support of blacks who face
prejudice.  The substitution only bows to, I can only assume, some
perception of negative political or financial consequences of suggesting
that sometimes blacks beat up people who are of the same race as their
oppressors.

B) Artistically, again a weaker line.  The original mentions a vivid ACTUAL
EVENT (someone getting beaten up) which is much stronger dramatically than
reducing the listener to the semi-neurotic state of simply being
"frightened" of any and all blacks who got sacked.  The new line actually
does a disservice to blacks in suggesting that one be frightened of them
simply because they've been laid off, ignoring the fact that the vast
majority of blacks do NOT beat people up due to this.  DO they beat people
up?  Some do, but that's not mentioned in the new lyrics...we are just to
live in fear of unemployed blacks in general, without any particular
evidence to justify that fright.

>Art dies if the artist is not free to interpret his own ideas in his own
>way.

A perfectly true but not a useful statement.  No one's arguing Pete
shouldn't change it a bit (not that he'd listen to them anyway) but the
specifics so far are subject to serious and I think valid criticism.  It's
simply wrong to claim that Broadway isn't ready for the spectre of the
words "lesbian and queers", or the suggestion that blacks beat people up.
There are FAR more shocking things ENACTED, not just mentioned. on stage in
successful productions.  And further and finally, going back to my argument
of the emotional evaluation of a piece of art, if anyone of an age to go to
a Broadway play can't handle admittedly edgy verbal imagery that you and I
not only survived but embraced at the tender age of let's say 14 to 17,
then I say it's their loss, not mine, yours, or Pete's.  The Who was never
about doing things the easy way, nor do I think Pete is about that.  "Be
kind, be real, or get out of my face", indeed.  These lyrics changes are
not only a retreat from the "be real" honesty Pete generally demands, but
clumsily executed retreats at that.  I would object to clumsily executed
lyrics changes that made Quad MORE edgy and uncomfortable...bumbling in
softening its edges is doubly inexcusable.

Cheers,

Alan

"Never never hesitate, communicate, communicate..." --Pete Townshend