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

Re: Are the Who important? Is ROCK important?



>Good point! The Who are only currently important if
>they are currently contributing.
>
>That is not to say they weren't important, just that
>they aren't as important as they use to be. In the
>large scheme of things they contributed some great
>music that, even today, still stands the test of time.

I'd suspect the fact that they've always preferred the live shows has 
something to do with this.  Their "current contribution" is reduced because 
of the relative small number of (audio and video) recordings they issued and 
the fact that these were aimed at a somewhat off-mainstream audience.  The 
small number of recordings may have ensured higher quality in what WAS 
issued, but it has still cut down the cultural saturation.

The live performances are ephemeral, and their reputation proved forgettable 
within fourteen years.  They may be at the point of becoming musically 
influential again, and it would seem to be a good time to entrench the music 
a little more deeply into popular culture.


>My biggest pleasure in this camp would be for The Who
>to release new music that could rival U2's last
>outing(which IMHO was absolutely amazing)

If Pete's in charge, I suspect it will mystify everyone.  Later it may well 
be considered a masterpiece.

;)

keets