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

Re: Roger & Pete as Heroes



do you really care about the hero thing?
As Scott says, this is a tough one to answer, Helen. It's really open-ended. But whatever you mean, I'm impressed with the hero thing.

I believe the TIME Heroes series started in 1999 with a review of the noteworthy people of the 20th Century and how they affected our lives and times. You might wonder what qualifies the TIME editors to make such choices, but whatever, they seemed to do a pretty decent job in picking out the most prominent of the past and detailing what they did. The issue is still up online, and there are also reader polls where readers checked in with an opinion. Here's the link: http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/

There was quite a bit of discussion of this issue in the media, and others also stepped forward with an opinion as to who should rank where. TIME has nominated Albert Einstein as the most influential man of the century, but I recall that someone else named Louis Armstrong. TIME has named Gavrilo Princip as the villian/trigger of the century for firing the shot that started the world wars. Interesting? The issue was such as success that TIME went on to name contemporary American Heroes (presumably in the running for heroes of the next century), and now they've done Asian and European Heroes, as well.

They're tending to pick out people who try to do good things. What we normally see in the media is bad news, so it's good to see positive role models become successful for a change. There are celebrities on the lists, but celebrity has to do with prominence after all. Time will prove some of the nominations empty, of course, but some of these people will go on to be the movers and shakers that determine the course of the next century.

As for Roger specifically being named as an alchemist of the European Heroes, it's great that he's gotten the recognition, but the fact that he's suddenly on this list indicates a change in Roger's perceptions, as well. Roger has always been one of those people who could move the world--and of course it's always been The Who that he wanted. In the past few years, though, he's looked past the closed circle of recording and touring at the wider world and other means to make it go. Charity concerts are a means to promote The Who, after all, and an opportunity at the same time to swing the weight of The Who (and it's audience) against some need. How's that for an addition to Lifehouse?

As for how this sits with Who fans, it does seem to have a) passed with insufficient notice and b) put some folks' noses out of joint. It's possible that Whofans are depressed by Pete's problems to the point where they don't really care what awards Roger gets, but it's also possible that they're taken by surprise at the realization that non-Whofans might see Roger as a hero. This is because Pete has always been the hero to them. It's Pete who writes the songs and provides the music they love, and of course he's the spiritual leader. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't yet know this.

Roger and Pete are now partners in The Who, and it shouldn't be a competition. What one does enhances the other. Roger's prominence as a hero increases Pete's prominence as a composer, because they work so closely together. And Pete's opportunity to make a difference is still out there, alive in the child porn scandal. A step up the spiritual ladder, maybe? Rather than complain as Del Naja has when he's cleared, Pete has the platform to call for an end to child porn. Hmmm. Wouldn't that make a pretty dramatic rock opera?


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail