Re: Quadroscamia

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> One of the weird things about Who covers is thinking of the songs as songs
> rather than Who performances. Pre-rock, there would have been no set
> performance of Quadrophenia just as there is no set performance of any
> opera. But now, this new version is forced to look over its shoulder at
how
> The Who performed it.

Brian:

Because The Who versions are perfect? Or definitive?
I don't mind changes, but they should be for the better...not for the worse!
And I don't see ANY strengthening of the message or a making more accessible
here.

> Cappucino Joe and Mr. Joseph"?? :-P.  Is Quadrophenia going to turn into a
> mere rant against yuppie Starbuck's-patronizing drones?

Alan:

Yeah! Jimmy was working class.

> 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.

Ah! But NOT in England! What would it be there, African-Britians? Someone
from the UK please answer this one for us.
Just be glad he didn't say Nig-nogs or Wogs. Although it's hard for me to
imagine "Nig-nog" being an insult; it's too much like "Egg Nog."

> I say it is a collection of music that EVOKES thoughts and feelings.

You're both right...it's a set of thoughts and feelings set down which
evokes a set of thoughts and feelings...and not necessarily the SAME
thoughts and feelings, BTW.

 > emotion of, oh, let's call it dismay.

"Dread" for me. If Pete is off here, then what will the new Who album be
like?

> 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

I'd say the first point is stronger and more important...we leave old people
alone to die because we don't want to deal with them.

> implies the Quad production team doesn't trust its audience to figure that
> out.

Underestimating the audience is as dangerous as overestimating them.

> perception of negative political or financial consequences of suggesting
> that sometimes blacks beat up people who are of the same race as their
> oppressors.

I'd say this is the reason. Suggesting that blacks are no better than to
beat someone up because they represent their enemy, despite the fact that
whites have done the exact same thing in far greater numbers for a lot
longer. Hell, who HAVEN'T they oppressed or punished at this point? "We" I
guess I should say, although I've never personally oppressed anyone
(although you might get a different story from my daughter).


"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation.
  It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve."
            George "My IQ is 98" Bush


               Cheers                 ML