[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pie R Square aka Standards rule OK?
>True, his voice was not up to par at CFNYC, at least after Who are You (in which I thought he sounded great).
Mc:
I've already admitted that in the venue his voice sounds better than the record later shows it to be. That much was true as far back as 1989, when I got my first boot of a show I'd been to. Raving about his voice, I was...then I heard the tape. Here I'm talking about the un-tarted up video of them playing live.
>Well, I can't judge because I have never been to an Aerosmith concert nor do I have any albums.
But...I'm not talking about the music itself. I'm talking about their behavior of cashing in on their past. Lately by hiring songwriters to make "Aerosmith" songs.
> You'd have to talk to an Aerosmith officionado (sp?) to judge their "spirit." I think the Who's spirit transcends the individual members, IMHO.
Even when there's less of them? How small do we slice the pie before someone's going to admit it's no longer a "pie," but just a slice of what used to be a pie?
>Let's try to stay not so naive, please.
Tom:
I agree, I don't think people should be naive. It's not naive, realizing what the band is today compared to what it used to be. I'm willing to admit they are no longer The Who, whereas it seems some want to pretend they still are. In the larger sense, it almost appears people are willing to minimize or completely ignore John's importance and contribution to the sound. I know no one is intentionally doing this...at least I'd hope not. But that's the end result, you know. Saying "Doesn't matter if John's not there, we'll hire a substitute bassplayer...any old bassplayer...and carry on (my wayward son)."
>IMO, the great Who's paradox is how a pop/rock band, working on basic music - - ya know, three chords, quaternary beat, teenage oriented and so on -, were able to transform it in Art, influential music up to change the world, and
Yes, so far we are in complete agreement.
>Theyve created a strong brand THE WHO and with this powerful name theyve conquered fans and audience.
I don't know about the concept of a Rock band "brand name." To me, saying that seems another attempt to justify what cannot be justified. That being calling half the band the entire band. See the pie analogy above. If you agree to the idea of a "brand name," then ANYONE can be in the band as long as they were in the band...so generations from now some unrecognizable people might be playing Pinball Wizard on their hand instruments (no sexual content intended) and calling themselves The Who. They inherited or purchased the brand name, so why not? BTW, that also plays into the sports analogy.
>anyway. And now, they will step a footstep forward, and they will launch a
new album,
You mean a kind of "Bridges To Babylon" giant step? What kind of step it will be remains to be seen. One thing is certain, it won't be a Who album. Without John? Who's naive? Not me, mate.
> with new songs in a conceptual work, and you, Mark, ask them to
give up his name for moral questions. IMO, thats is not the central issue,
You have a right to that opinion. I'm stating mine, that it's NOT The Who and therefore shouldn't be called The Who.
>legacy is not what matters now
It is to me. Can't one thing be pure? Must everything end up as a money game? Do you think Beethoven (Townshend's been compared to him) was making his music for money?
>Who knows? Who cares?
I do. Me. That's who cares. Long time Who fan, one of the longest here. I have always held up The Who as the highest standard of Rock music. Now...it's getting impossible to do so. I hate to see The Who reduced to the level of Kansas (or much worse) and Journey, replacing members as needed and touring for the moola.
If I wanted to settle, another band would be my favorite. Well, who knows...that might be the process we're in right now. My conversion.
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
Rush Limbaugh
Cheers ML
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search