Re: HummingPolice&I'm One with a new material tour

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

> After Synchronicity (1983-4) there really wasn't another band out there 
> that could compete with The Police.  
> Yes, U2 would have given them a run for their money.  But, U2 was in 
> it's infancy when Sting stung The Police and killed them.

Wrong!  U2 was *the* band with the momentum in the early '80s & were
four years old (actually older) in 1984.  They were already considered
more political, more spiritual, more relevant than the Police in 1984.
And obviously, U2 won.  Today they *can* be lumped in with the Beatles,
the Stones, The Who, etc.  The Police, however, remain "Sting's first
band." 
 
> I also attribute his lack of success to the vast departure of his solo 
> material from his guitar slashing, smashing, violent persona of The Who.

Right.  That's what I referred to as the "lightness" of Pete's solo albums.

> I just wonder if people buy expecting one thing, and then find another.

Oh, I'm sure it happened.  But the non-freaks are only gonna get burned
once or twice.  After that, they'll stop buying.

> Another tour of no new material, in my book, is pointless.

Granted it's great to hear them play but.....why does it seem so incorrect
to keep celebrating the past?  Why do I feel that way?  Why is it wrong for 
a rock band to become stagnant?  Why must they always be breaking new 
ground?  Have we been conditioned?

> But, I will miss the pre-show gatherings.

Those are a blast.  The Who energy is sometimes more palpable at those than
it is at the shows!  Those pre-shows can be magic.  Literally!

> I'm afraid it's at the point that it would be fodder for industry jokers.
> The critics would rip them apart.

I'm of the opinion that that damage has already been done & more jokes &
criticism won't make much more of a difference.  We'll always be defending.
Fighting in the streets.

> If there *is* any sort of momentum, it's not even *close* to what it was 
> right after the CFNYC.

That was it.  I had people coming up to me excitedly saying, "Did you see
The Who at the Concert For New York?!  Wow, were they great!!"  For a brief
moment all that Who energy we freaks feel everyday had spilled over into
the general public.  They were giddy with new-found feelings.

> John's death really derailed things.
> Pete's legal troubles, IMO, killed what was left.

<sigh>  All true.  If anything, The Who can be looked upon as a great trag-
edy of literary proportions.  Deep & complex.  Triumphs & successes on a
truly grand scale.  That can't be said of many bands.

> > You forgot to mention Cake.  ;-/
>
> You said you liked them when I played a CD for you on our travels!

I'll say anything to get someone to shut up.  Ha!  That's a joke!  I'm
just kidding!  You're a swell guy, Cousin Kevilinski!  For a white boy.

> I believe that despite the great songs on that album, the homosexual 
> debate that ensued after EG, contributed to Pete's solo demise.

Maybe, but that theme didn't continue on any of his later solo albums.  But
the rumors did, you're right.  They didn't go away.  The snickering & the
jokes.

> Hmmm.  I've always thought it (Pete's voice) was great.  I've never 
> thought it was a detriment.

I like his voice, also, but it is a detriment.  He's no Rod Stewart.  He
has a thin, sometimes whiny voice.  Pretty at times but very limited in
range & style.  Not destined to reach great heights. It's true, I'm afraid.


- SCHRADE in Akron

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