Re: Farewell tours?

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Wasn't there really only ONE so-called farewell tour, in 1982?  As far 
> as I recall that was the only one really billed as such - the others 
> were either anniversary tours (Tommy '89), revivals (Quad '96-97;
> Lifehouse '99-00), or just "tours" (2002).


Of course.  You are correct.  Now, we have to ask ourselves why do people
keep referring to subsequent Who tours as "yet another farewell tour."

The answer is that in 1982 Pete Townshend & The Who claimed that they were
conducting their final large-scale tour.  They held press conferences, they
gave statements to the media, they explained it to their fans, they got a
ton of press.  It was *the reason* for the tour.  It generated a lot of 
excitement & notoriety, as any such act of finality on a popular scale
would.

In 1982 The Who were quitting the touring business.  No more.  Maybe the 
one-off show, here & there, but no more major tours.  Since then they have
conducted four major large-scale tours.  The general public & the press with
their unlimited archives had it beaten into their head in 1982 that The Who
were not going to tour anymore.  Everyone loves to see someone go back on 
their word - especially the press.

If you'll remember, the '89 tour press conferences were dogged with quest-
ions like, "In 1982 you said no more big tours.  What happened?"  Pete then
mumbled things about The Who's 25th birthday & being inspired at the Rock &
Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremonies, etc.  Fine, but they were still go-
ing back on their word - rightly or wrongly.

The '89 tour gave the press their first chance to utter the phrase "yet 
another farewell tour."  And they had a couple of reasons to be negative in
such a manner.

1. The '89 tour was billed as a one-off tour just to celebrate The Who's
25th anniversary.  Without saying so, The Who basically implied that this
*was* another farewell tour.  One more time for the band to say thank you
to its fans, & one more time for the fans to see the band.

2. Pete Townshend gave a few interviews saying that the main reason he
agreed to do the tour was because of the money he would be paid.  He made 
no secret that it was a lot of money & that he was excited to get it.  The
press pounced on that.

So, what does the press do?  Rightly so, they begin the claim that The Who
are embarking on another farewell tour - mainly for the money.  Great press
fodder.

Who reads the press?  The general public.  Who is molded by the press?  The
general public.  Who is "informed" by the press?  The general public.  The
ironic feedback loop had been established.  Now you have everyday people in
everyday situations talking about yet another final tour for The Who.  And
damnit if that Pete Townshend didn't say he was doing it for the money.
Great general public fodder.

The subsequent tours after '89 only served to cement the concept further.
Even without the band mentioning the term "farewell tour" it was already im-
plied.  

The Who had now become the band that engages in farewell tours every few
years.  Incorrect though it was, it was an easy (and fun!) comment/quip to
throw around - again, both in the press & in the general public.  An easy
joke.  And who doesn't like easy jokes?

Keith Jackson is a college football announcer on television.  He worked for
ages, & about five years ago he announced he was retiring, & "the big game"
would be his final broadcast.  Big event.  Lots of press.  Lots of discus-
sion.

Well, what do you think happened?  About two years later he's back in the
booth, announcing college football games.  And on certain holidays I get to
hear my dad & my older brother complaining & remarking that Keith Jackson
claimed he was retiring years ago yet here his is doing broadcasts.  They
love reveling in it.  They love pointing out that he went back on his word.
It's an easy joke & an easy comment.

Call it human nature, call it a comment on today's society.  It is what it
is.  A chance for people to point out fallacies in others - whether to 
bolster their own self-esteem or whether to gain positive feedback by seem-
ing witty & "informed."

Like it or not, The Who are lumped with it.  And it's really their own
fault.
Can we really expect both the press & the general public to be impartial
& completely unbiased when formulating an opinion?  Can we expect that of
ourselves?


- SCHRADE in Akron

Nature composes some of her loveliest poems for the microscope & the
telescope.
   - Theodore Roszak