More on statements

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

>I read an interesting article a while back (actually posted the link on 
>igtc), a scholarly analysis of the bare-chested hard rock statment...So, 
>the question is, can Roger still make a viable statement with his shirt 
>buttoned?

It looked like Roger meant to make his last statement as rockgod on the DST 
show and tour, and maybe he meant to give up his position as rockgod 
completely and go to acting full time.  Instead, the tour jump-started The 
Who, and may turn out to jump-start the rock and roll genre in general. (If 
you can call what The Who does rock and roll.)

It actually works in The Who's favor that the bare-chested demigod is out of 
style, and that substance was more valued by Grunge than ego.  The Who HAS 
substance, and TED can now extend their careers based on the music, rather 
than on an image of youth and sexual prowess.  Roger still looks good 
without his shirt, but unless he's got some deal with the devil, that can't 
go on forever.  Meanwhile, The Who's statement played very well at CFNYC, 
and was clearly based less on the lyrics than the delivery.

Rock music has been identified with youth for a couple of reasons.  One is 
the subject-matter, and I'd say the other is that rockgod statement.  What 
it needs to extend it as a genre is a new body of material that addresses 
the concerns of older fans as well as younger ones, and a new image that 
includes admirable and effective elder rockers.

It seems The Who now has an opportunity to provide this.


keets