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

Re: pete and roger jumping



In a message dated 04/29/2002 6:55:29 PM Central Daylight Time, 
TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:


> Well, given your own premise that performaers tend to develop their
> abilities, why indeed?  I can think of a couple possibilities: A) Pete
> thought of it first, and Roger didn't want to cop the move; B) Roger
> considered it but rejected it for some reason.  One that suggests itself is
> that it's much harder to jump around while singing than while playing
> gittar.
> 
> 

I think this is one of the things that makes the Who so awesome in concert: 
each has their own set of moves.  This is what I think is wrong with many of 
today's live performers: they all jump around like maniacs and it seems 
contrived and gets very tiresome.  I was showing the RAH 2000 video to some 
students between classes, and rather than remarking on Pete and Roger's 
energy, they kept asking why John doesn't jump around.  They couldn't 
understand my explanation that the band needs an anchor, and if all are 
jumping around then it loses it's specialness.  The Who, especially in their 
prime, is the greatest live band ever (without a shadow of a doubt) because 
each had their own styles which blended perfectly:  Pete's jumps, windmills, 
etc... Roger's rocking back and forth using the whole long hair effect, the 
bare chest, and the mike twirling, keith's general wildness, thrashing, and 
facial contortions, and john as the motionless anchor.  Today, the live acts 
with all the members jumping around have over-saturated the music industry 
and it is now completely played.  No longer unique.  And what's more, the Who 
STILL do it much better than the whipper-snappers.

mc

"Can't we all just get along?"       -Rodney King