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

Re: I shot the Heroin (but I didn't snort the deputy); Pete vs the fans



> Most of his work pre-461 was written by other people.  I'll say it again:
> He was never much of a writer, not prolific anyway.

Jeff:

OK, then post-heroin he started to make bad choices. Kinda like Dan Ackroyd
and Chevy Chase. Actually, more like Roger Daltrey...he made some REALLY bad
choices in his solo career...I mean, Giddy-Up? (groan)

> listening to Howard Stern makes you a bad person.

NO it doesn't! If I was listening to John Boy & Billy, or Rush, or some
other big fat idiot, then maybe. Oh, and Baba O'Booey to you all!

> I was trying to make a point that if a great performer can continue to be
a
> great performer, why shouldn't that be enough to avoid derision and get
some
> kudos for their performance gifts and efforts.  I think The Who lands in
> this category.

Then it twists the entire meaning of career meltdown, or at least as I
understood it. After all, Elvis could still do a great performance (witness
his "black leather" show in 1968) long after he melted down. I thought we
were talking about dropping the ball, creatively. Followed by become a sad
parody of what you used to be, just going through the motions for people
over and over as one gets older and older...what I call being an Oldies
band. Which Pete attempted to avoid by disbanding The Who in 1982.

> favorite album's to 'good but not great' albums, spotty performances and
> barely speaking to your mates for years at a time you have experienced
> something like a 'meltdown'.

Jeff:

But, uh...they were always in that "barely speaking" frame of mind,
historically from the very beginning. Spotty performances, we must forgive
them this else The Beatles has a meltdown in 1965...clearly not true, but
their live performances from this period are inferior to their earlier live
work. And it got worse, until they created perhaps their greatest work of
all.

> What does everyone think of the album???

Scott:

I think it's half a great Who album.

> an Elton concert for me. McCartney should have packed it in after Wings,

Tom:

Don't you mean "before?" Bip Bop? Silly Love Songs? Listen What The Man
Said????

> Sting's music is awful after The Police.

I do like his stuff through Soul Cages, but he definitely took a hike after
that. And he's still out there...somewhere...

> I'd agree, that The Who had fallen the farthest because they were so high

Gern:

But wouldn't you say, instead, the lowest point for The Who was the `79 tour
(when Pete was drunk 90% of the time) and Face Dances, because It's Hard and
the `82 tour are better than that.

> the old tunes, and came out with nothing new. And from the outside, that
> looks a bit pathetic.

Normally I'd be in full agreement, except for two things: A) they put on a
killer performance, which proved to all doubters they didn't NEED all the
bells and whistles they've toured with since 1989, which completely redeemed
their reputation, and B) they put on a killer performance, which is good all
by itself.
Sure, new material would be great. But they needed to wash away all the bad
opinions of the last 12 years. Which I believe they did.

> legends. Still, their live shows were very "organic" and changed quite a
> bit, unlike the Who's.

But the Who's performances were different than the recorded ones, and they
did jam on the songs, so that still counts. IMHO.

> jab at a certain overly enthusiastic list member that does the same thing,

Hey, it's not my fault he's stupid enough to say these things...some of us
find them very amusing.

> There's always been a question in my mind whether Candle was a rip-off of
> The Kinks' "Celluloid Heroes," much as "Rocket Man" was a rip-off of
"Space
> Oddity."

Brian:

I'd say the second is a stretch, unless you want to say Harry Nilsson's
Spaceman is also a rip-off and many other songs...remember, that was back
during the days when we actually HAD a space program...but either case is
hardly the first time an artist wrote about the same subject another had.

> http://www.jumptheshark.com/

Jon:

Thanks. See, Jeff, there IS some redeeming value in being a Stern listener!

> Sensitive yes, but not to the point of taking away the BBS.

Kevin:

When you have the sort of people who will not back down, as we did on both
sides of this, I can see where a great "washing away" might appear to be the
only solution at some point.

> Hmmmmmm, not to continue to stir this whole black episode, but I don't
know
> how innocent the intent was.

I do believe it was innocent, in that the intent was never more than to
alert Pete to a problem. True, the alerter had expectations not followed
through by the alertee...but we're talking about intent here.

> Not the way I'd characterize some of the ugliness I read back then.

Because when Pete didn't see it as a problem, frustration took over. And,
like an American in Europe: "If I say it LOUDER and with more feeling this
time perhaps he'll understand how INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT this is!"
I can see it from both sides. Promises were given by Astley thinking they
were impossible to fulfill and when it did in fact become possible, they
were broken. That contributed greatly to the aggression, and it's
understandable. Wouldn't you say? I believe things wouldn't have been nearly
as bad had it not been for the Quick One incident.

> Sometimes aggression is just that.

Sometime aggression comes from frustration. Some of which, at least, was
justified.

> The person who's ego is so large that they feel they must be heard and
> responded to.

Yeah, but being a Who fan does tend to feed ones' ego. We are the elite,
they are the masses. How much time and energy have I put into being a Who
fan? Well, in that case shouldn't I be taken seriously by the band? Don't I
have a perspective not possible for the band members and their menions?
Sure!

> I don't think Pete could ever be accused of ignoring his fans.

I agree. He's been very giving, and could have been more interactive had not
there been the incidents. Still, Roger McGuinn frequented the Byrds list
until a few jerks started causing trouble and he left as a result. It's an
Internet problem, and before long we'll see therapists writing about it I'm
sure.

> knowing, I can't imagine that Pete ignored the whole thing.  I believe he
> probably responded in a way that was not satisfactory to the respond-e.

Of THAT, I'm positive!

> serious scowl (that could be misinterpreted as lack of interest) on his
face
> that he had in 89".

Maybe, but in Raleigh he was happy, positively bouncy. It was clear he was
enjoying himself.

> Yep, and as Mark (I think) said, the long periods of inactivity contribute
> to the "meltdown" perception.

No, that was someone else.


"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."
     George "Sha-ZAM!" Bush

               Cheers                 ML