Re: Fan hitting the shit; Meltdown fever

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

> > Aggression, in my book, is never justified.  Particularly in this case.
>
>But The Who are one of THE most aggressive band in the Rock universe...Punk 
>bands were the first I can think of to go beyond that, and most of them 
>were admitted Who fans. So why is it surprising that a Who fan might be 
>aggressive. I certainly am, as you know. I would be more surprised at a Who 
>fan NOT being aggressive, myself. Doesn't mean they go out and beat people 
>up, but that's not what happened on Pete's BB either.

Figuratively, I think it was something like that.  There certainly are a lot 
of aggressive people on the Who lists, but everybody just has to get used to 
it--a little respect goes a long way.  What's bad is trying to control a 
list by bullying behavior that discourages free posting, or which ridicules 
or harasses posters in an attempt to drive them away.  This is the 
serverlist equivalent to beating little kids up in the schoolyard, and it's 
the preferred method of interaction for certain fans we all know and love. 
;)

Trying that tactic on the more aggressive fans can lead to particularly 
nasty flame wars.  There was a taste of it on the PT BBS, but it's been more 
likely to play out on O&S.  Scott actually had to close it down a couple of 
times because people flamed the list, presumably trying to crash the server. 
  He now has software to limit who can post.


>Not everyone feels this way, for good or bad. Sometimes the fans ARE right 
>and the bands wrong.

The problem with this is that it doesn't matter who's right.  The band still 
gets to make the decisions.


>Uh...that doesn't count; I've already said the big band worked for Quad. I 
>resented horns over the three most powerful powerchords in Rock history 
>(Baba).

OK.


> > What do you consider "new material?"  Studio recordings only?  What 
>about Pete demos?
>
>New material is complete written songs...not jamming and/or ad libbing.

I'm not sure musicians sit down with a pencil and paper and write songs.  
I'd bet Pete is more likely to sit down with a guitar and a tape recorder 
and start off playing and singing, and then transcribe the music only if he 
needs to.  Isn't he actually noted for inventing/popularizing this method of 
songwriting?

You can pretty much tell he's talking about tapes when he says he's got 
songs and snippets of songs.  He's been going through tapes to put together 
Scoop 3, not reams of paper.

I think Pete did take to re-writing his songs in the late seventies.  
There's evidence of it on WHO ARE YOU, where his wording takes a really 
baroque turn.  It's not necessarily for the better, either, as it kills the 
spontaneous quality that most of his earlier work had.  I love the summer 
jams.  That raw, immediate stuff sounds like Pete writing for The Who again 
instead of for himself.  Now and then I think he did toss in lyrics he's 
thought up and written out, but they weren't nearly as striking.


>That's where I go off the strict definition. I think that might have 
>applied until MG, but that was the song which broke the mold. I'm still 
>waiting for someone to show me another candidate, and haven't been able to 
>find one myself.

Isn't MG in two-four time?  Or are you talking about the jam at the end?  
That always was pure chaos, what with the feedback and the smashing around 
and so on.


>And the children and church music style has become too standardized for me. 
>I want a little stretching which they don't provide.

Well, churches do tend to belabor their point a little, but I think there's 
much more variation and some good work in the kiddy rock.  There's no real 
reason that rock music can't be sweet and sunny--much of sixties and early 
seventies rock was very idealistic.  It's just another sub-genre.  Like you 
say, life is tough, and I guess we'll just have to put up with it.  ;)


> > Jazz was a forbidden treat in its time.
>
>Right. Its time has passed and so has Rock's time.

You mean they're no longer forbidden?  Shock rock is still disliked by most 
parents.  Jazz remains a respected genre.  It's generally tough to play, and 
it retains a sizable audience.


>But Rap and Hip-Hop are not progressive at all. They're actually pretty 
>regressive, using sampled music someone else has created and standard 
>beats.

I can't comment on hip hop, but music isn't the emphasis in rap, at least.  
The conversations are, and the music is designed so it doesn't distract from 
the rap.  I'm sort of music-oriented myself, so I do prefer the hybrid work 
set against real music.  Just lately I've heard some other folks I enjoy, 
too.  Who's the gal rapper who plays the rhythm with her acoustic guitar?


> > popular category, rather than strictly rock.  Where does rock have left 
>to go?
>
>Away.

Maybe not.  Two-four time is really easy to play, and then all you need is 
three chords and some content.  We're still likely to hear some entertaining 
hybrids.  May not be to our taste, but still...


>I have nothing against Matt, he seems like a nice guy. But he was never our 
>representative.

What representative do you mean?  For this list?  For US fans?

I don't know much about Who fan club history, but as the UK fan club, Naked 
Eye is the prime candidate for official fan club status, and it has been 
open to any US members who were interested.  It's headquartered right there 
close to TED, and I think Matt has made some attempt to work deals for the 
members.  I don't know that TED are in a rush to award "official" status, 
though.  Likely Pete took note of the infighting on his BBS.


> > No it was either booze or coke in that period.
>
>I DO know it couldn't have been coke, or he would have been intense rather 
>than sloppy.

Well, maybe it is just a nasty case of alcoholism, but it looks like heroin 
to me.  That pale, deathly chic has been the "in" look again just recently.



keets
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com