"Farewell Tour?"
George Perry
From: "Alex Gilblom" <drumm...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "Farewell Tour?"
Date: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:34 AM
> The Who, on the other hand, did a
> "Farewell Tour" in 1981. They have since come back more times than Ozzy.
I
> loved them both in the late 70's & early 80's and this is what separated
> them to me. I guess another reason is the Stones have actually put out
some
> music since then. The Who is totally stuck in the 70's.
Actually, the farewell tour was 1982. The Who is a band of musicians, now
performing music, rather than presenting new musical ideas. They also
embrace their age rather than present an embarassment along the lines of
seeing Mick and Keith ham it up as if they were both still living like 25
year olds. John Entwistle and Keith Moon lived it that way, purely, and
honestly, and died because of it. Mick and the boys just figured out how to
present the image while enjoying the money.
I wish the average Stones fan could understand that there is some honor in
the fact that The Who hasn't put out new music since they believe they won't
be any good at it. They do what they always did and have always been the
best at, touring. I'm sure if the album making decisions for all bands were
all based on quality instead of quantity, you'd have a few less Stones'
albums in your collection to say the least.
-Alex
Brian in Atlanta
that The Who should be applauded for having the good sense to know when to
hang it up in the studio. There's a lot to be said for that argument.
--
-Brian in Atlanta
The Who This Month!
http://www.thewhothismonth.com
CYBERFLOYD
embrace their age rather than present an embarassment along the lines of
seeing Mick and Keith ham it up as if they were both still living like 25
year olds. >>
Offer specifics rather than editorialize. Exactly how is Rog's blustery Mike
twirling and Pete's leaping windmills 'embracing their age?' They were doing
exactly the same thing when they were 25. Not that I'm criticizing. That's what
they do. The Stones do what they do. What is this 25 year old cut off point for
performers? That's more severe than the Logan's Run age limit. Criticizing rock
musicians on the basis of their ages is a total cliche. Get over the age
non-issue.
<< I wish the average Stones fan could understand that there is some honor in
the fact that The Who hasn't put out new music since they believe they won't
be any good at it. >>
There's no particular honor in the Who not making records. It's a circumstance
based on the fact that the well has run dry for Pete in regard to writing new
material for Rog to sing. The Stones are not faced with a similar circumstance
so why should they not record?
<< I'm sure if the album making decisions for all bands were
all based on quality instead of quantity, you'd have a few less Stones'
albums in your collection to say the least.
>>
You post is devoid of insight into why the Stones record. Total blather. They
do it because it keeps them vital, avoiding the very problem Pete is faced
with. Use it or lose it so they say.
John William Kendall UK
<<<Indeed. I have heard the reverse argument made, even in the music press,
that The Who should be applauded for having the good sense to know when to
hang it up in the studio. There's a lot to be said for that argument.>>>
I really disagree. Any band who wants to develop needs NEW music. It's the most
exciting issue to let the member's creativity flow and go ahead with the music.
Any band, which stops recording and only performs the long - gone creativity,
does not develop anymore. The development of music comes to a halt and the
bands ceases to be a living entity. It's hard to distinguish those groups from
nostalgia and oldie events.
Who wants purely new stuff during actual Who shows ? No one. But why not adding
new music to the old anthems ?
Well, the key is: The Who does not act as a living band since 20 years. They
are acting like bussines partners. They come together, reproduce the old
successful songs, minimize any rehearsal time and maximise profit.
Sad, but true.
Anyway, I love "Townshend & Daltrey performing Who Songs"....
John William Kendall.
William Traynor
"John William Kendall UK" <tymp...@aol.comy> wrote in message
news:20020822161314...@mb-fo.aol.com...
partners. The Who are no different in that sense. Just because you make new
music does not mean you cease to be a business partner. On the contrary,
groups that continue to record are more involved in "business" than a group
like the Who.
Alex Gilblom
They
> do it because it keeps them vital, avoiding the very problem Pete is faced
> with. Use it or lose it so they say.
My post on alt.rock-n-roll.stones was in reply to a post that said The Who
was stuck in the 70s, and that the Stones are a shining example because they
continue to release albums. I'm not going to pretend to have 1/100th the
insight with the Stones that I do with the Who. I see Jagger do his
bump-and-grind stripper thing and it's sad at his age, that's my opinion.
Roger and Pete are both soulfull and sincere, at least at the three shows
I've seen. Roger lets his chest stick out a bit, but for a 59 year-old who's
taken care of himself that well at looks better than men 30 years younger
than him, it's his prerogative to do that. Jagger looks like a heroin
addict.
-Alex
D.G. Devin
>
>Actually, the farewell tour was 1982. The Who is a band of musicians, now
>performing music, rather than presenting new musical ideas. They also
>embrace their age rather than present an embarassment along the lines of
>seeing Mick and Keith ham it up as if they were both still living like 25
>year olds.
Actually, Pete Townshend has said recently that he is a little put-off to
still find himself playing guitar like he did in his twenties,
"machine-gunning the audience" as he put it. I guess if you can, why not, I
hope I'm still as limber at 60 as Mick Jagger. What the hell, if Sean
Connery can still appear in action movies and kiss girls young enough to be
his granddaughter, what's a little hamming it up onstage?
>I wish the average Stones fan could understand that there is some honor in
>the fact that The Who hasn't put out new music since they believe they
won't
>be any good at it. They do what they always did and have always been the
>best at, touring. I'm sure if the album making decisions for all bands were
>all based on quality instead of quantity, you'd have a few less Stones'
>albums in your collection to say the least.
The odd thing is, most of the Stones albums I could live without were made
in the 80s, their newer work tends to be more appealing to me than stuff
like Emotional Rescue. But I'm not sure about he "honor," thing. Although
I'm happy (thrilled in fact) to hear the Who play their great work from the
60s and 70s (it is possible to be a Who fan and a Stones fan both, really it
is) I find it baffling that someone as creative as Pete is afraid he can't
write a Who song anymore, that the band's fans won't follow him wherever he
wants to musically explore, as if we're all louts who want to hear WGFA in a
slightly different form. He might stumble, he might even fall at times, but
that's life, you have to pick up some scrapes and bruises on the way. It's
his decision, I'm not about to go all sour on the band like some Who fans
because he won't do a new album (and I'm looking at it pre-JAE's death) --
I'm pretty happy still hearing them do the old stuff.
D.G. Devin
<8Pc99.122$ML7.7...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
>I see Jagger do his
>bump-and-grind stripper thing and it's sad at his age, that's my opinion.
Sadder than Pete windmilling in almost every song just to get a rise out of
the audience? He didn't do it a third as often in the seventies, it was a
rarity then, now he throws it into every other song. It's stagecraft, it's
part of the show, like Roger's mic-twirling, what I don't get is why the
Who's stagecraft is okay and the Stones' is somehow sad, how come one
gimmick is more tolerable than another?
>Roger and Pete are both soulfull and sincere, at least at the three shows
>I've seen. Roger lets his chest stick out a bit, but for a 59 year-old
who's
>taken care of himself that well at looks better than men 30 years younger
>than him, it's his prerogative to do that. Jagger looks like a heroin
>addict.
"Cause he's thin? He's always been scrawny, he hasn't changed a bit in that
regard, if that's a crime, well I could do with a little of that kind of
guilt, as my waist-size now exceeds my inseam. And Jagger is that skinny
because he works at it, he's fanatical about exercise and what he eats.
He's a performer whose appearance is part of what he has to sell, it's
downright bizarre that you would think Roger taking care of himself is
admirable but Jagger looks like a junkie. It's a safe bet that if Jagger
showed up with a gut hanging over his belt, that would be a crime too, the
guy just can't win with some people.
Eric
interesting writing that peaks usually at a very young age. It seems every
band follows the same pattern. Very creative and ambitious -- then as fame,
fortune and perhaps less creativity due to aging, real life, domestic
issues, etc., the writing goes downhill. I'm sure someone could write a PhD
thesis on the subject.
Townshend peaked from 1970 to 1973. After that, it was a slow downhill. I
like Who By Numbers and Who Are You, but it's clear the fire and spark
wasn't quite there any more.
That's not to say aging musicians can't come up with an interesting song
every now and again -- but I think Pete is right to realize he can't fairly
compete with his height of creativity.
The same thing happened to the Stones, Led Zeppelin, even the Beatles.
There is a short window of opportunity when artist's are at their creative
peak.
Moreover, I think that generations from now, the years 1964 to 1978 will be
deemed the golden age of popular music -- if they aren't already. Very
little has been written recently to compare with popular music of that time
period. Thus, it was the times, as well as the artists, that made for such
spectacular music. Does anyone really think that Brittany Spears, or The
Backstreet Boys, or even Nirvana will be played on the radio 35 years from
now -- such as Can't Explain (or Behind Blue Eyes) is still played today?
The generation, the era, the times, the cultural upheavals happening
worldwide, their youth. all contributed to the remarkable sound that was the
Who and Pete Townshend. I don't think Pete's afraid to try and write new
Who songs -- I think Pete is too intelligent.
E
"D.G. Devin" <DGD...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:7rd99.376$9D1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
CYBERFLOYD
was stuck in the 70s, and that the Stones are a shining example because they
continue to release albums. I'm not going to pretend to have 1/100th the
insight with the Stones that I do with the Who. I see Jagger do his
bump-and-grind stripper thing and it's sad at his age, that's my opinion.
Roger and Pete are both soulfull and sincere, at least at the three shows
I've seen. Roger lets his chest stick out a bit, but for a 59 year-old who's
taken care of himself that well at looks better than men 30 years younger
than him, it's his prerogative to do that. Jagger looks like a heroin
addict.
>>
Well, what is your problem then? The Stones' music or their looks? Those are
two separate issues. One has little to do with the other. If you have no
insight into The Stones as you said you should probably just stick to posting
what you know about the Who, otherwise it's just a lot of inflammatory bullshit
designed to make you look ignorant and rile other people.
Who cares about the way other people look anyway? People were saying the
Stones were ugly in 1965. It's about as relevant to their music now as it was
then.
Now what WOULD be silly is if Rog was still wearing that fringe jacket and
big hair..
Alex Gilblom
of
> the audience?
Didn't he get that from Keith Richards in the first place? ;o)
Seriously though, it's a matter of taste when it comes down to gimmicks. To
me it's ok to be older and to dress older (since Pete IS older), and to play
the guitar the way he once did (when he was younger, and when the
inspiration for the songs first hit him). The Stones' gimmick always seemed
so cheesy to me because the band has been (for most of their history) so
highly busniess-oriented before they were musicians, especially Mick. Yeah,
the Rolling Stones are probably the 'Ultimate Rock and Roll Band', I'll
admit that, but there's a level of class and style that comes to mind when I
think of Pete's gimmicks (as well as the rest of the Who's) that the Stones
never had. I guess Pete and Roger are just much better at selling me their
schtick. But I think the reason for that is because it's most often genuine,
in the moment kind of stuff. For example, Pete told the JBL people in a
pre-tour interview he wouldn't be smashing any guitars on this tour, and
bingo, he smashed one at the fourth show at the Gorge.
I guess I've come off here as a Stones hater, I'm really not. I enjoy their
music. I'm paying a nice chunk of change to see them in San Francisco in
November, but I don't expect anything genuine. I expect to hear some really
cool songs played by an adequate band that happens to be very famous. If I
get anything more, I'll be grateful, and I'll have no problem admitting it
if in fact I've been too harsh. Judging from the lack of disagreement on the
Stones' newsgroup for my original post, I'd say I hit the nail on the head.
-Alex
CYBERFLOYD
in the 80s, their newer work tends to be more appealing to me than stuff
like Emotional Rescue. >>
Tattoo You is a really good one, although most of it was actually cut it the
70s. Emotional Rescue the song isn't a bad novelty hit. The rest of the album
is good for a few standout minimalist rockers like She's So Cold and Let Me Go.
It's a pretty enjoyable album of leftovers from Some Girls.
The other two LPs they made in the 80's, Undercover and Dirty Work, were hit
and miss but not without some great songs.
I prefer the more recent ones also.
Mike
the cover) and it said The Stones will try out 'Slave' (Tatto You) on the
upcoming tour. Pete make a guest appearance? :) He contributed backing vocals
on the song back then. The Stones will try out alot of obscure numbers, even
more than The Who's IMO.
M~
CYBERFLOYD
<< Let's face it -- most musicians have a very short span of highly creative,
interesting writing that peaks usually at a very young age. It seems every
band follows the same pattern. Very creative and ambitious -- then as fame,
fortune and perhaps less creativity due to aging, real life, domestic
issues, etc., the writing goes downhill. >>
In the creative life there are peaks and valleys. Artists go through dry
spells, such as Pete Townshend's. They might not reach the heights of popular
acclaim which they did with the work that initially surprised and and
enthralled an audience. It's the tendency to innovate which tends to fade with
youth, not the creative impulse itself. Artists in later years tend to refine
their particular language rather than invent new forms. This may impact their
commercial but not artistic relevance.
It isn't true that rock musicans have a small window of opportunity in which
to create significant work. In the last several years Dylan and Lou Reed and
many other 40-50 somethings have released new works of distinction.
<< Does anyone really think that Brittany Spears, or The
Backstreet Boys, or even Nirvana will be played on the radio 35 years from
now -- such as Can't Explain (or Behind Blue Eyes) is still played today?
>>
Nirvana will be played for as long as Chuck Berry is played. There are things
happening even now which bode well for the future of rock music. Golden ages
are mostly nostalgia and hyperbole.
<< I don't think Pete's afraid to try and write new
Who songs -- I think Pete is too intelligent.
>>
For whatever reasons Pete is just not interested in working with Roger Daltry
on that kind of a level. I suspect Pete is as creative as he's ever been, just
not interested in channeling it into that kind of a collaboration. He's done
about faces before though and could again.
D.G. Devin
>Didn't he get that from Keith Richards in the first place? ;o)
That's the story, although Keith was only seen to do it a couple of times
onstage, during the '72 tour, when Pete saw him doing it he was just trying
to loosen his arms up.
>Seriously though, it's a matter of taste when it comes down to gimmicks.
That's been my point through the whole Who vs. Stones discussion, taste is
an entirely legitimate reason for preferring one band to another, until it
becomes judgemental, then it requires supporting evidence. I know a
professional musician who tours with his own band who says he can't stand
the Who. When I ask him to break that down for me, give me solid musical
reasons, he can't, the conversation always goes down sidestreets, "They
haven't recorded in 20 years," which is true but has nothing to do with the
quality of what they recorded in their first decade and a half. So I apply
the same standard to criticism of the Stones, anyone is free to dislike
them, but if they want to persuade others then they need some proverbial
facts and figures.
>I guess I've come off here as a Stones hater, I'm really not. I enjoy their
>music. I'm paying a nice chunk of change to see them in San Francisco in
>November, but I don't expect anything genuine. I expect to hear some really
>cool songs played by an adequate band that happens to be very famous. If I
>get anything more, I'll be grateful, and I'll have no problem admitting it
>if in fact I've been too harsh.
The 8th or the 9th? Based on what they've been rehearsing, you should
expect a few surprises, they've been working on songs they hadn't played
live for a long time, or ever in some cases. Reports from the surprise club
gig they did in Toronto a few days ago were very promising. I'm not sure
what "genuine" means to you, I think of it as what the Stones play on their
B-stage sets, where the crowd is literally close enough to throw Ron Wood a
cigarette. At least I think it was a cigarette. They used a lot less
showbiz on their '99 tour, they allowed the music to carry the show, and
most folks seemed to think they did that pretty well.
>Judging from the lack of disagreement on the
>Stones' newsgroup for my original post, I'd say I hit the nail on the head.
The Stones newsgroup is a wasteland, mutilated by trolls, a pale shadow of
its former self. There was a day when you could have some good music
conversations there, pretty hard to do these days.
CYBERFLOYD
<< Seriously though, it's a matter of taste when it comes down to gimmicks. To
me it's ok to be older and to dress older (since Pete IS older), and to play
the guitar the way he once did (when he was younger, and when the
inspiration for the songs first hit him). >>
Onstage Pete looks like an old retired man who lives in Florida. If Mick looked
like that all would be cool..
<< The Stones' gimmick always seemed
so cheesy to me because the band has been (for most of their history) so
highly busniess-oriented before they were musicians, especially Mick. >>
More unsubstantiated BS. What The Stones collectively knew about business when
they were 19 and 20 you put on the wart of a hog's ass. Mick was going to
business school. He dropped out to play with the Stones in blues clubs. Blues
was so uncommercial a form of music in Britain at that time that no one went
into it with a 'plan.' The young Stone's credibility as serious blues disciples
is unquestionable in rock history. Your assumptions are from a different
planet.
<< I'm paying a nice chunk of change to see them in San Francisco in
November, but I don't expect anything genuine. I expect to hear some really
cool songs played by an adequate band that happens to be very famous. If I
get anything more, I'll be grateful, and I'll have no problem admitting it
if in fact I've been too harsh. Judging from the lack of disagreement on the
Stones' newsgroup for my original post, I'd say I hit the nail on the head.<<
I think a nail hit you on the head. That ng is mostly psychos and spanners. Get
off Usenet and go to an actual Stones webboard. I guarantee you one and all
will find you condescension laughable.
Brian in Atlanta
> interesting writing that peaks usually at a very young age. It seems
every
> band follows the same pattern. Very creative and ambitious -- then as
fame,
> fortune and perhaps less creativity due to aging, real life, domestic
> issues, etc., the writing goes downhill. I'm sure someone could write a
PhD
> thesis on the subject.
Especially as it seems to pop up in filmmakers as well. A period of a few
years of classic cinema then a long string of lesser films. Some painters
and a lot of writers have careers like that as well.
CYBERFLOYD
years of classic cinema then a long string of lesser films. Some painters
and a lot of writers have careers like that as well.
>>
Some don't live up to their earlier achievements but the arts are full of
creators with brilliant late-period works. David Lynch released Mullholland
Drive after 20 plus years as a filmmaker. Speilberg did A.I. which was taken
from unused concepts developed by Kubrick in his later years. Picasso's best
stuff was done in his 60's and 60's.
halpiemeister
> like Who By Numbers and Who Are You, but it's clear the fire and spark
> wasn't quite there any more.
I don't think it's that simple. First of all, 1970 itself was a
creative drought for Townshend (that's why they had to put out Live at
Leeds). Many of the Who's greatest songs were produced before 1970 (a
bunch of fantastic singles and many songs on the My Generation, Quick
One, Sell Out, and Tommy albums)and Townshend produced some great
stuff in the late seventies through mid-eighties (Rough Mix, Empty
Glass, Chinese Eyes and White City).
Generally, "fire and spark" kinds of songs are produced by young
people. Would a 50 something year old man be able to, with a straight
face, write I Can't Explain or You Really Got Me or I Want to Hold
Your Hand? Those feelings of youthful idealism, confusion, rebellion,
etc. can't last forever. You don't need to shock your parents anymore
or differentiate yourself from the older generation when you are in
your 50s. It becomes silly because your are them.
What some songwriters do is evolve and write about things that are
relevant to them as they get older. Dylan, as usual, has been onto
something with his last two albums. You have to tap into your
strengths. As you age, you gain a better sense of the history of
music, having been there during those long forgotten times of yore and
witnessing what is current. You can then incorporate bits and pieces
of many eras and genres into your work as Dylan did in Love and Theft.
Lyrically, you can be a bit wiser, having had many more experiences
in your lifetime. With Townshend's talent and knowledge, there is so
much he could potentially do in the future if he puts his mind to it.
remove x from address to reply
>creative drought for Townshend (that's why they had to put out Live at
>Leeds).
I'd hardly call penning a double albums worth of Lifehouse demos a 'creative
drought' !
As for the release of a live album, that was originally intended back in 1968 -
hence the Fillmore recording. However, Townshend then came up with Tommy, so
the Fillmore show was shelved.
The post Tommy period gave the band another chance to release a live album.
They obviously wanted something more current than the Fillmore show and
something that showcased (unlike Tommy) the power and volume side of the band,
thus Live At Leeds.
Leeds wasn't released as some kind of panic-led emergency stop-gap to
camouflage a Townshend suffering musical writers cramp (or should that be
wankers cramp ? Oh hang on...that's me !).
So, 1970 was a pretty productive year for old Bignose. The 'drought' was to hit
later.
Alex Gilblom
You're witty, you could write lyrics for the Stones' next album.
> That ng is mostly psychos and spanners. Get
> off Usenet and go to an actual Stones webboard. I guarantee you one and
all
> will find you condescension laughable.
That's the feeling I'm starting to get now. I had read a few thoughtful
posts by chance and managed to skip a lot of crap until now. Point taken.
But I'm still gonna condescend until Mick and the boys prove me wrong. ;o)
-Alex
Alex Gilblom
November 9th. It'll be here before I know it...
-Alex
William Traynor
"D.G. Devin" <DGD...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
> Alex Gilblom wrote in message
> <8Pc99.122$ML7.7...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> >I see Jagger do his
> >bump-and-grind stripper thing and it's sad at his age, that's my opinion.
>
> Sadder than Pete windmilling in almost every song just to get a rise out
of
> the audience? He didn't do it a third as often in the seventies, it was a
> rarity then, now he throws it into every other song. It's stagecraft,
it's
> part of the show, like Roger's mic-twirling, what I don't get is why the
> Who's stagecraft is okay and the Stones' is somehow sad, how come one
> gimmick is more tolerable than another?
Gotta disagree there, Pete does not jump around or do windmills nearly as
much as he used to. In addition, he changes his stage repertoire from year
to year.....I don't recall him literally banging the body of the guitar the
way he does it now. Rarely do I see him actually lift the guitar above his
head like he used to. And the band rarely does those Pete jumps at the end
of a song like they did on the 1982 tour. Pete would jump three or four
times to end a song. That was pretty tiresome after awhile. Check out the
Cleveland 75' video or Isle of Wight....windmills and jumps galore. I've
been to two shows this year and Pete did three of four jumps all night, and
30 windmills the entire evening. Check out the Toronto '82 video for 30
jumps during the night.
KCRvrRnnr
Very, very doubtful.
William Traynor
"CYBERFLOYD" <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020823005849...@mb-de.aol.com...
I see your point about looks, but............Marilyn Manson? Boy George?
There is something to be said for looks, lol.
CYBERFLOYD
Very, very doubtful.
>>
Some people prefer to feel that music they don't personally like isn't very
important historically and won't last. Nirvana will. Deal with it.
CYBERFLOYD
There is something to be said for looks, lol.
>>
Marilyn Manson? With or without tits? Boy George set of a big fashion trend
with those hasid hats.
The only pop star I can't stand to look at is Michael Jackson.
CYBERFLOYD
Very, very doubtful.
>>
Common sense will tell you Nirvana will last. They were major artists in rock
music with a punk lineage. The pioneers in that realm, The Velvet Underground,
Sex Pistols, Ramones, Patti Smith, Clash, Elvis Costello ect. have lasted.
Cobain and Nirvana were as good as any practitioners of that ethos and sold
more than all of them.
It's a no-brainer that they will last.
D.G. Devin
>That's the feeling I'm starting to get now. I had read a few thoughtful
>posts by chance and managed to skip a lot of crap until now. Point taken.
>But I'm still gonna condescend until Mick and the boys prove me wrong. ;o)
I hope you enjoy the show, and if you go with an open mind, I bet you do.
The Stones have all kinds of flaws, as do the Who, but neither of them can
be said to have been "phoning it in" lately. It's possible that in PacBell
Park, being a stadium, they'll use a little more razzle dazzle than in the
smaller venues, but don't let that put you off the music. Get ahold of the
Voodoo Lounge DVD and check that out, it's a good look at the ultimate
version of their stadium show, but the music needs to make no apologies, and
if you don't psych yourself out worrying about whether Jagger is wiggling
his bum or something, you'll probably enjoy it. ;-)
D.G. Devin
>Generally, "fire and spark" kinds of songs are produced by young
>people. Would a 50 something year old man be able to, with a straight
>face, write I Can't Explain or You Really Got Me or I Want to Hold
>Your Hand?
I wonder if Pete thinks that kind of song is the only thing we want from
him, that if we don't get "Pinball Wizard" or "Magic Bus" we'll throw the CD
out the window? Is he underestimating us as an audience, or is he right,
would be reject anything new that didn't sound like 1975 out-takes?
D.G. Devin
Personally, Nirvana does nothing for me, but I can't underestimate their
importance because a lot of people whose opinions I normally respect
consider that band a major point of reference. And I at least have to like
the fact that they slipped under the radar of the label marketing droids and
kicked open a new door for awhile before the copycat music industry found or
created hundreds of Nirvana clones. So the fact that they weren't my cup of
tea would seem to be me problem, and I can live with that. As to whether
they will have the endurance of say Chuck Berry or the Who or the Beatles or
the Stones, perhaps it's also true that some people prefer to feel that
music they personally like is important historically and will last. ;-)
D.G. Devin
>Gotta disagree there, Pete does not jump around or do windmills nearly as
>much as he used to. In addition, he changes his stage repertoire from year
>to year.....I don't recall him literally banging the body of the guitar the
>way he does it now.
Okay, on the jumping thing, I agree, he only does that two or three times a
night now, but he's older and quite a bit heavier than he was, ahem, as I
am. However, on the windmilling I certainly insist that he is using this
stage move very freely of late, I saw him do it over and over this past
July, including (it seemed to me) at times when it really wasn't a good fit,
like he was throwing it in whenever it occured to him. I think of that move
as a hot spice, use it too much and it becomes bland.
Pounding the guitar with the heel of his fist does seem to be a frequent
move these days, I suspect a lot of folks who think he is using the whammy
bar more are actually seeing him pummeling the body of the instrument
instead and don't realize that. He is also holding he guitar with his right
hand and smacking it into his hip. I have a real nice Fender Strat and I
don't do that, because I have to pay for mine, and I'll bet anyone a beer
that Pete gets his for free.
And to relate this back to the point of discussion, the Stones vary their
stagecraft too, it's not like they walk through the same moves and
crowd-pleasers without fail, although some items like the audience
participation in "Brown Sugar" is probably set in concrete at this point.
But other crowd-pleasers like Keith playing the piano with his foot in
"Honky Tonk Woman" they seemed to have (mercifully) dropped, it was fun the
first time, it became predictable after happening every night for two tours
in row.
remove x from address to reply
> Common sense will tell you Nirvana will last. They were major artists in
>rock
Very true, but sadly they will probably mostly be remembered for Smells Like
Teen Spirit, the Stairway To Heaven of the Grunge generation.
aka chelsea corazon
i kind of agree-- perhaps nirvana will be remembered more like the sex
pistols, i.e.,
more important as a cultural turning point in music's social history,
rather than for
their *actual* music. with the coming of nirvana, the hair bands truly
died, and
while it was still big rock, the grunge movement heralded a more
personal, less
pretentious variety of rock music. in an odd way, it didn't affect the
who at all,
since their best known work predated punk and even hair bands. maybe
that's why
it's still so effective: the who are like a time capsule. and oddly, too,
their music fits today, since much of it is so personal to pete. i love 'the
who by numbers' for instance, which is such an intimate album. 'imagine
a man . . . '
and 'they are all in love' which is discomforting, but really gets the point
across. my theory is that roger doesn't like to sing that one because
he doesn't
want to appear gay. (just a guess.) but it's a good song, and it's
really about
pete's feelings at that time. and 'blue red and grey' a bitter, dark
song
with a sweet melody, sung so perfectly by roger. timeless stuff.
chelsea
Brian in Atlanta
> him, that if we don't get "Pinball Wizard" or "Magic Bus" we'll throw the
CD
> out the window? Is he underestimating us as an audience, or is he right,
> would be reject anything new that didn't sound like 1975 out-takes?
If he thinks that, he's absolutely right. Who fans may not be all
conservative politically but, for all but a small few, they are very
conservative musically. You merely have to read alt.music.who to see that.
If The Who were to come out with a new album and it wasn't WHO'S NEXT TWO or
QUADROPHENIA REDUX, most Who fans would certainly reject it.
remove x from address to reply
>conservative politically but, for all but a small few, they are very
>conservative musically.
I dunno about that. Unless you limit your Who listening to just one album you
can hardly be called conservative. Every bloody album is totally different to
the previous release ! The Who are (in the studio anyway) an unconservative
beast to say the least.
I think (in the highly unlikely event !) that a next album was to arrive, the
fans would obviously be hoping that it sounded akin to The Who at their best
(eg Whos Next/Quad etc), rather than a Face Dances Part 2. I wouldn't call that
attitude conservatism atall.
However. with the recent sad loss of JE, that's a state of affairs that ain't
likely to happen either way now, therefore one regular argument less on this
ng.
D.G. Devin
>If he thinks that, he's absolutely right. Who fans may not be all
>conservative politically but, for all but a small few, they are very
>conservative musically. You merely have to read alt.music.who to see that.
>If The Who were to come out with a new album and it wasn't WHO'S NEXT TWO
or
>QUADROPHENIA REDUX, most Who fans would certainly reject it.
You might be right, a lot of fans would want slashing power chords and manic
drumming and Roger finding a reason for a long scream, or they would start
complaining it doesn't sound like the Who. And considering the reaction
other bands of the same era got when they experimented with new sounds, Pete
might be right in thinking he would have to rewrite WGFO over and over, and
it's a safe bet he doesn't want to do that. Still, if they decided to call
it Townshend & Daltrey, and not The Who, maybe they could get away with it,
Who fans would still buy it but would have an excuse not to complain so
much. Of course that in itself would probably make them unhappy. ;-)
aka chelsea corazon
how about simply 't & d' ?
chelsea
Brian in Atlanta
> it Townshend & Daltrey, and not The Who, maybe they could get away with
it,
> Who fans would still buy it but would have an excuse not to complain so
> much. Of course that in itself would probably make them unhappy. ;-)
And just for my vote, I think a Daltrey-Townshend album with a sound like
ROUGH MIX would be a great idea. Not only would I love to hear it, but I
thought it would be a great idea even before John died. No pressure to be
The Who. No pressure to make every thing an arena-size rocker for John.
But then, I don't kid myself that it would be in the "All CD's $1" bin
within a year.
CYBERFLOYD
respect for Mick's work, but his looks and attitude come across as
someone desperately trying to hide the fact that he's approaching 60.
>>
If you like the Stones (but not enough to pay to see them) you probably don't
know enough about Mick's attitudes to make an informed judgment. You've
probably spent less time listening to Mick's observations on aging than you
have watching the Stones perform.
Mick basically feels that enjoying life isn't the exclusive province of
youth. To his credit, he stays physically fit and creatively attuned, working
on a variety of projects with and without the Stones. He's as active as most
people half his age. It's a great thing we don't all have to be pigeonholed
about how to look, act, or feel--at any age.
<< In other words, it's like when a guy loses a lot of hair from the top
of his head -- does he accept it and work with it, or does he do a
combover or get a cheap hairhat that fools nobody?<<
This might be a better analogy if Mick HAD a combover but he has every hair he
was born with.
D.G. Devin
>As a longtime observer of male physiques, it is my educated (and
>expert <g>) opinion that Mick looks scrawny and shriveled and lined,
>while Roger looks fit and aging gracefully (at least as far as his
>appearance -- I don't know about him personally).
In that regard, they both look like they've always looked, Roger was always
sturdier than Mick. When Merry Clayton, whose soulful singing does so much
for "Gimme Shelter" first met Mick in L.A. while getting ready to record the
song, she looked at MJ and said, "Man, I thought you was a man, but you
nothing but a skinny little boy." I don't think he's put on a pound in the
intervening thirty years.
>I like the Stones (but not enough to pay to see them) and have much
>respect for Mick's work, but his looks and attitude come across as
>someone desperately trying to hide the fact that he's approaching 60.
Considering what he does for a living, I'm not sure desperate is the right
word, professional is almost a better fit. To me it's like Sean Connery
still making action movies where he gets the girl, if someone was willing to
pay me millions to do that at Connery's or Jagger's age, I guess I would
give it a shot. ;-)
D.G. Devin
>This might be a better analogy if Mick HAD a combover but he has every hair
he
>was born with.
Some Stones fans are pretty sure from photographic evidence that Mick has
had a little nip and tuck on his face at least once, that might include a
little hair relocating as well. That wouldn't surpise me, professionally or
just from vanity, I can see him doing it. If so, I don't plan on losing any
sleep over it, it's his music I like, not his profile. I also don't focus
on whether Pete Townshend is a little balder this year than last time I saw
him, it just isn't an issue for me, because I'm there for the music they
make. And yet whenever the Stones are mentioned, people wanting to snipe at
them drag out everything BUT the music, it's as if Jagger's butt is more
important than his work when deciding whether or not they like the Stones.
Odd. Or maybe not so odd, I knew a woman once who could tell you every
outfit Daltrey ever wore on stage, apparently that was what was important to
her about the Who, Roger's butt. Go figure.
CYBERFLOYD
haven't spent my life studying The Tao of Mick. >>
Actually you didn't qualify your statement in the least. You offered a coarse
opinion about someone else's attitudes with nothing to back it up.
<< Fine, but I still think he looks like a caricature. And that's my
opinion. I'm as entitled to it as you are to yours. >>
I couldn't possibly care less about what you think Mick Jagger looks like. It
seems like a boring and shallow way to discuss people anyway. At issue is a
statement about attitudes implying you have some sort of insight into Jagger's
psychology.
<< Yeesh! Do you not understand what an analogy is? I said "it's LIKE
when a guy loses a lot of hair from the top of his head..."
>>
I do believe I do!! That's why I noted what a poor one it was. Implicit in your
statement was a belief that Mick tries to be something he's not. When you make
such loaded statements without evidence expect to be exposed as fraudulent. If
you can prove that Mick Jagger tries to be anything other that what and who he
is, 59 year old Mick Jagger, than you have more skill than George Bush's speech
writers.
CYBERFLOYD
had a little nip and tuck on his face at least once, that might include a
little hair relocating as well. >>
It's possible Mick has had facial surgery. It's certain he dyes his hair. He
doesn't wear false hair. Any kind of hair replacement is easy to spot if you
are looking for it. These issues about surfaces are trivial stuff though. Hair
dye, nip-and-tucks, false teeth, contact lenses or Gap jeans aren't legitimate
criticism of an artist's music or performance.
<< And yet whenever the Stones are mentioned, people wanting to snipe at
them drag out everything BUT the music, it's as if Jagger's butt is more
important than his work when deciding whether or not they like the Stones. >>
So true. How stupid it would be if people believed Pete Townshend's wardrobe
was a legitimate reason to criticize the Who. My Dad wears better clothes than
Pete but who should actually care?
D.G. Devin
> So true. How stupid it would be if people believed Pete Townshend's
wardrobe
>was a legitimate reason to criticize the Who. My Dad wears better clothes
than
>Pete but who should actually care?
It would matter if he was wearing spandex pants with a foil-wrapped cucumber
in them, or a leather facemask with spikes on it, that would call into
question his artistic judgement as well. But the Who and the Stones both
seem to dress onstage as if they were going to a football game, maybe Keith
Richards sometimes wears something a little bit showbiz (about on the same
level as Entwistle in that regard), but for many years neither band has
indulged in the childish costumes that so many performers seem to feel are
needed to support their music. So Roger still swings his mic, and Jagger
still sprints around the stage, Pete windmills, Richards does his little
kicks, business as usual, yet some people think only one of these two bands
is guilty of not acting their age, go figure.
CYBERFLOYD
thread. <g >>
I repsond to posts in this thread becuase I find it interesting to do so. I
have no idea if they are yours. I haven't read the headers.
<< Step back and stop taking this (and yourself) so seriously, OK? I said
that I was making an observation, not a graduate-level dissertation.
>>
Why get personal? Generally on Usenet people will get called on loaded
statements. It helps to know what you're talking about. If controversy makes
you uncomfortable I'd stay away from it.
<< How a man deals with wrinkling and other physical signs of the aging
process is a LOT like how men deal with hair loss. They can either go
with the flow, accept the inevitable and be comfortable with who they
are, or they can dump their wives and publicly chase after (and
impregnate) models younger than their daughters. >>
By any chance are you female? That would explain a lot. Now you take issue with
the private lives of persons you don't know, as well as their appearances. It
must be hell to have you as a neighbor.
As for your obsession with surfaces, it would be a hoot to see yours. No makeup
or frilly hairdos dear, go with the flow.
<< Now, if you don't calm down, I'm just going to have to give you an
extended time-out in the killfile because you are just too ridiculous
for words right now. You're usually a bit more rational than this. >>
Yow! The sweet sting of punishment!
CYBERFLOYD
in them, or a leather facemask with spikes on it, that would call into
question his artistic judgement as well. >>
Appearance DOES have a place in a discussion of performance art. David Bowie's
image makeovers were part and parcel of his presentation.
Mick changes clothes during Stones shows and he wears some ridiculous getups.
His influences are Little Richard (still camp at 70) and James Brown. Mick
participated in the glam rock movement. He's toned down his performance style
since the 80's, but Mick is still Mick. it isn't so much and age thing as a
Mick thing. Outlandishness is one of the tools he uses to get his act over. It
may be silly for a 50+ man to prance around in a feathered top hat but it
wouldn't be that smashing for a 30 year old either. Mick is in on the joke.
Josh
>Richards sometimes wears something a little bit showbiz
What's with the fishhooks in Richards' hair these days?
Josh
VertigoLand http://members.aol.com/VertigoMan
Me (the online diary) http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me
CDR Trading:
http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me/bootlist.html
techboi
fenceerx
Alex Gilblom <drumm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8Pc99.122$ML7.7...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > You post is devoid of insight into why the Stones record. Total blather.
> They
> > do it because it keeps them vital, avoiding the very problem Pete is
faced
> > with. Use it or lose it so they say.
>
> My post on alt.rock-n-roll.stones was in reply to a post that said The Who
> was stuck in the 70s, and that the Stones are a shining example because
they
> continue to release albums. I'm not going to pretend to have 1/100th the
> insight with the Stones that I do with the Who. I see Jagger do his
> bump-and-grind stripper thing and it's sad at his age, that's my opinion.
> Roger and Pete are both soulfull and sincere, at least at the three shows
> I've seen. Roger lets his chest stick out a bit, but for a 59 year-old
who's
> taken care of himself that well at looks better than men 30 years younger
> than him, it's his prerogative to do that. Jagger looks like a heroin
> addict.
>
How true! Great take by you.
>
>
CYBERFLOYD
<< But why do you keep responding to mine? >>
I dunno, maybe becuase it's amusing to wind you up and watch you spin around
like a top until you're dizzy?
<< Do you not know who wrote the
posts that you read?
>>
Is that a rule? I don't care if you're Hillary Clinton pretending to be a
Hillary wannabe pretending to be Hillary.
<< But apparently, Jagger agrees with me, as he has supposedly hired a
public relations consultant to polish his image.
>>
Gosh, you never heard of slanted journalism did you? Which celebs don't hire pr
firms? Far from casting a negative shadow on ol' Mick as was your intent,
you've painted yourself into a corner reserved for the tiniest of minds, the
tabloid hungry gossip junkies, desperate to find fault with media personalities
as a way of assuaging their own misery.
<< You got personal first, with your "holier than thou" horseshit and
trying to tell me what I can and cannot post.
>>
What a primitive reaction to a superior argument. I honestly hope you keep
posting. What started out as a rebuff to an intemperate remark made about Mick
Jagger now amounts to a harangue by some sort of Hillary cultist with an ax to
grind against non-monogamous older men. Consider the source I guess.
Fascinating anyway.
<< Oh my. Look who's getting personal now! Not a smart idea to hector
someone about something and then turn around and do it yourself. Makes
you look like a screeching hypocrite.
>>
My satire of your petty (Midwestern?) mindset has left you so dazed and
confused you can barely form a coherent sentence. Go back to the kitchen and
come back in about 50 years when you've evolved into something more resembling
a world class moralizing old biddy.
<< Yow! The sweet sting of punishment!
Wow, this is a very touchy subject for you, isn't it? >>
If that's a come on I'll pass.
Iggles
"CYBERFLOYD" <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020826005436...@mb-fk.aol.com...
> So true. How stupid it would be if people believed Pete Townshend's
wardrobe
> was a legitimate reason to criticize the Who. My Dad wears better clothes
than
> Pete but who should actually care?
Pete's wardrobe designer is from the grave, Jerry Garcia. The dark navy
blue t-shirts and jeans are a welcome sign that Pete isn't in a pretentious
mood this year. Actually I find it uncanny that he dresses like Garcia did
for YEARS before he died in '95. The music is all that matters, Pete wore
boiler suits for two years during the peak of The Who's career. Fashion is
not important to bands that just want to play music.
D.G. Devin
>The music is all that matters, Pete wore
>boiler suits for two years during the peak of The Who's career. Fashion is
>not important to bands that just want to play music.
But keep in mind that at the same time Pete was wearing those
high-visibility white coveralls, Roger was wearing outfits that would have
made Fredericks of Hollywood think twice, and John was ready for a Halloween
party. ;-)
Iggles
"D.G. Devin" <DGD...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:lIDa9.6295$p%3.48...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John wore his skeleton suit once, for a major festival. ;-) You forgot that
the drummer was wearing a t-shirt and shorts. They never embraced Gucci or
Versace for stagewear. You're so sensitive. ;-)
If you really think the Who were on stage to display their clothesline after
1967, I have some swampland in FL to sell you.
D.G. Devin
>How a man deals with wrinkling and other physical signs of the aging
>process is a LOT like how men deal with hair loss. They can either go
>with the flow, accept the inevitable and be comfortable with who they
>are, or they can dump their wives and publicly chase after (and
>impregnate) models younger than their daughters.
With respect, I think you're barking up the wrong tree, because Mick Jagger
isn't some insurance salesman going bald, he's a rock star. And rock stars
are selling a product, mostly music, but also a lot of image, always has
been, always will be. Jagger has always had an athletic stage show, he runs
and jumps all over the stage. So if he can still do that, and he mostly
can, and if the audience enjoys it, then it strikes me as a little odd to
say he should stop because he's reached some arbitrary age limit. Mae West
told racy jokes until long after she was of any sexual interest to anyone
other than female impersonators, and you didn't hear anyone complaining she
should stop that because she was too old, she was an entertainer, it's what
she did. Jagger is an entertainer, he puts on a show in addition to singing
the songs, there is no good reason why he should suddenly perch on a wooden
stool like some ancient blues singer who can't walk anymore just because
some folks have an age phobia.
As for the models, it doesn't seem like Jagger has to chase them very hard,
they don't seem exactly unwilling to be caught. Put yourself in their
shoes, imagine Roger Daltrey knocking at your door one day and asking if he
could borrow a cup of sugar, would you let the fact that he's Mick Jagger's
age put you off? ;-)
Biff_Meister
fact. There is no way to know how history will treat Nirvana. The
crucible of time will refine all this, and enough time has not yet
passed. I don't think enough time has passed yet for any true
historical perspective on any of the popular music of the last 40
years. Too many living participants, too many vested interests, too
many people protecting their own egos.
(and I like Nirvana.... and Foo Fighters.... and Smashing Pumpkins....
and Bevis Frond.... and The Rolling Stones studio stuff.... and Chuck
Berry.... and Little Richard.... etc)
On 24 Aug 2002 05:42:21 GMT, cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD) wrote:
><< >Nirvana will be played for as long as Chuck Berry is played.
>
>Very, very doubtful.
> >>
>
>
> Some people prefer to feel that music they don't personally like isn't very
>important historically and won't last. Nirvana will. Deal with it.
>
------------------
Biff_Meister
------------------
Links for live Who mp3s:
http://webpages.charter.net/biff_meister/index.html
D.G. Devin
>If you really think the Who were on stage to display their clothesline
after
>1967, I have some swampland in FL to sell you.
Ha, I have personal experience of sharing the evening with a young lady who
was positively steaming over Roger's "Suit of Many Zippers" in the 80s, so
don't tell me he wasn't still dressing to show off, the women at least knew
what was going on. ;-)
And I never did manage to figure out John's fashion statement, he usually
looked like a used car salesman on his way to a strip club Friday night.
D.G. Devin
>What's with the fishhooks in Richards' hair these days?
He got rid of most of those, or they fell out, now he has only a couple of
little silver Maltese Crosses, according to an interview in the current
issue of Guitar World magazine anyway. Still wears the "handcuffs" braclet
though, to remind him of his heroin bust in Toronto.
Iggles
"D.G. Devin" <DGD...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
> Iggles wrote in message ...
>
> >If you really think the Who were on stage to display their clothesline
> after
> >1967, I have some swampland in FL to sell you.
>
>
> Ha, I have personal experience of sharing the evening with a young lady
who
> was positively steaming over Roger's "Suit of Many Zippers" in the 80s, so
> don't tell me he wasn't still dressing to show off, the women at least
knew
> what was going on. ;-)
>
So Roger was the "Bobby" of the band.. I don't care what Roger wore
personally. Actually he was pretty plain until the '82 tour. Of course a
groupie didn't care what a person was wearing as long as she was with him.
Just admit the Stones were more acute to fashion than other bands of their
day. You can't but it's just the truth.
> And I never did manage to figure out John's fashion statement, he usually
> looked like a used car salesman on his way to a strip club Friday night.
Well then why bring it up?? Yeah, JAE looked liked a sleaze in a leather
jacket. That's a fashion statement?
COMPARED TO MICK AND THE GANG, THIS IS PRETTY TAME!!
CYBERFLOYD
fact. There is no way to know how history will treat Nirvana. The
crucible of time will refine all this, and enough time has not yet
passed. I don't think enough time has passed yet for any true
historical perspective on any of the popular music of the last 40
years. Too many living participants, too many vested interests, too
many people protecting their own egos.
>>
Nirvana and the city of Seattle was ground zero for a major US youth movement
in the 90s. This is not opinion, it is irrefutable fact. Musically, they can be
seen as progenitors of a new form (grunge) or popularisors of an old one
(punk). Either way, they sold millions of albums and Cobain entered Elvis/James
Dean/Morrison tragic fallen icon status upon his death. On a sheer historical
level, all this will be impossible for pop culture historians to ignore, even
if they had reason to.
The idea that Nirvana will be played as long as Chuck Berry is not presented
as either fact or opinion, but probability. As one looks over the history of
popular art, lasting recognition is achieved by either critical consensus or
mass sales. Nirvana had both and can be regarded as a genuine phenomenon.
D.G. Devin
>Just admit the Stones were more acute to fashion than other bands of their
>day. You can't but it's just the truth.
What day? The 60s? Clearly not true then, everybody was in silly costumes
for most of that decade, suits and ties at first, followed by
counter-culture costumes later on. The 70s? Again, everybody dressing
like, well, like rock stars, ever see anything sillier than Roger's fringed
vest? The 80s? Mick indulged in silly stage outfits in that period because
of the larger venues and larger stages, vivid outfits were more easily seen,
the rest of the band by then started to dress like they were going out for a
beer, unless you count jeans and a tank top as fashionable. By the 90s they
had pretty much abandoned any kind of deliberate stage outfits, with the
occasional flashy jacket or something like that which got ditched after the
first song, they're pretty much dressed like most folks in the audience.
Don't believe me, check their videos, you won't see much in the way of
spandex or whatever it is you imagine they wear. They dress pretty much the
same way the Who dress these days.
>Well then why bring it up?? Yeah, JAE looked liked a sleaze in a leather
>jacket. That's a fashion statement?
I wonder if he was color-blind? Sure looked like it some nights.
>COMPARED TO MICK AND THE GANG, THIS IS PRETTY TAME!!
Evidence sunshine, evidence, what you got? Every tour for the past decade,
Jagger has worn black shoes, black pants, and a t-shirt, that's his stage
outfit. Maybe he comes out in a shiny silver jacket, which he throws behind
the amps after one or two numbers, big deal. Oh ya, Keith wore a
fake-leopardskin coat when they hit the stage during the B2B tour, and
beyond that, it's getting hard to think of what you're talking about, but it
seems important to you, so whatever.
Biff_Meister
will conclude. For all we know, future historians may only see
significance of Nirvana and grunge as to its impact on skateboarding.
We just don't know.
>>> Some people prefer to feel that music they don't personally like isn't very
>>> important historically and won't last. Nirvana will. Deal with it.
> The idea that Nirvana will be played as long as Chuck Berry is not presented
>as either fact or opinion, but probability.
Your 'judgement of probability' is opinion expressed as fact in your
earlier post.
> Nirvana and the city of Seattle was ground zero for a major US youth movement
>in the 90s. This is not opinion, it is irrefutable fact.
"Irrefutable" and "major" are conclusions based on opinion (even
"ground zero" for that matter).
Irrefutable Fact 1962:
Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876.
Irrefutable Fact 2002:
Antonio Meucci invented the telephone in 1860.
Only time will tell.
------------------
CYBERFLOYD
you don't know what an analogy is and then you think I'm a "Hillary
cultist"? That last part is a HUGE insult.
>>
You're about the most horrible advert for Hillary Clinton I could imagine. A
talking, tabloid reading turnip with long wind and short intelligence.
<< Women turn you down, don't they? What do you have against older women
from the Midwest who cook? >>
You asked me several times to bring the conversation down your level and that
was my best attempt. You kind of resemble a dowdy Aunt Bea type, yammering on
about matters you have no real grasp of while on your way to a quilting bee.
Your posts are kind of like half baked muffins with the main ingredients
cliches and profanity. Hillary would not be proud.
CYBERFLOYD
will conclude. For all we know, future historians may only see
significance of Nirvana and grunge as to its impact on skateboarding.
We just don't know. >>
For all we know nuclear war will wipe out most relics of pop culture and the
few remaining artifacts of Partridge Family merchandise will be used as the
basis of a new civilization. We don't have to wait until we are all dead (ha!)
until we can come to reasonable and educated conclusions about a musician's
future standing in rock history.
<< "Irrefutable" and "major" are conclusions based on opinion (even
"ground zero" for that matter).
Irrefutable Fact 1962:
Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876.
Irrefutable Fact 2002:
Antonio Meucci invented the telephone in 1860. >>
Science doesn't take precedence over art in this discussion. Cobain was the
major focal point of a youth culture movement in 90s. His Nevermind album was
comparable to A Hard Day's Night in that it opened the floodgates for a deluge
of similar product. Pete Townshend is a pioneer in the use of extended
narrative in rock music. Picasso, with a few like minded compatriots, invented
Cubism and changed the course of painting in the 20th century. These are
things we know to be true, no less so because they less tangible than
telephones.
<< Only time will tell.
>>
That is your opinion. I do not (mistakenly) believe you are expressing it as
fact because of the force and conviction with which you express it.
Biff_Meister
I've seen some of your other posts, and you're beginning to smell of
troll. see ya.
On 27 Aug 2002 16:06:06 GMT, cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD) wrote:
<<more of the same>>
------------------
D.G. Devin
>Well, according to the 2002 tour book, Pete's wardrobe is by Yves St.
>Laurent Pour Homme. Not that it looks it, but he and Roger just dress
>like regular guys. :-)
If he was dressing like a regular guy, his wardrobe would be by Yves St.
K-Mart.
D.G. Devin
>It's not the age, but that some people become caricatures of
>themselves after a certain point. From *my observations*, Jagger comes
>across as a caricature of an aging rocker who can't accept the fact
>that he's eligible for AARP. It isn't his running around the stage or
>anything like that, but just something about him overall.
Okay, at least we've narrowed it down to specifics. ;-)
>Hell, no! :-D But I don't think of him as a spoof.
And that's the part that puzzles me, they're both doing exactly what they've
been doing for several decades, yet one is cool and one is a self-parody,
based on "just something about him." I guess it's just one of those
chemistry things, either that or Jagger's reputation as an old goat with a
lot of kids strikes a deeper cultural response than maybe we realize. As a
people we really do seem to resent anyone over a certain age who won't live
down to our expectations, and a refusal to become a sexual retiree seems to
be especially maddening.
Brian in Atlanta
the
> major focal point of a youth culture movement in 90s. His Nevermind album
was
> comparable to A Hard Day's Night in that it opened the floodgates for a
deluge
> of similar product. Pete Townshend is a pioneer in the use of extended
> narrative in rock music. Picasso, with a few like minded compatriots,
invented
> Cubism and changed the course of painting in the 20th century. These are
> things we know to be true, no less so because they less tangible than
> telephones.
Okay CF, what's your opinion on the "if he had only lived?" phenomenon? I
can't help but notice that our culture, particularly rock music, idolizes
artists who die young just as they tend to rate unfinished works of art too
highly. Does Cobain's importance rest solely on his achievements while alive
or have they been exaggerated by his early death?
--
-Brian in Atlanta
who believes if The Who had all died right after "Quadrophenia," they'd be
as big as The Beatles today.
The Who This Month!
http://www.thewhothismonth.com
CYBERFLOYD
>Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876.
>Irrefutable Fact 2002:
>Antonio Meucci invented the telephone in 1860. >> >>
Sorry, I skimmed through this and did, indeed, miss your point. I think
there's missed points on both sides however and it's rather rude of you to
start throwing epithets.
First of all I never, ever, labeled any opinion of mine as fact. As
discussions on the lasting merits of any art sits firmly in the realm of
subjective analysis, it wouldn't have occurred to me in the first place.
Secondly, you began your address to me by mischaracterizing my posts, so whose
trolling who?
CYBERFLOYD
Okay CF, what's your opinion on the "if he had only lived?" phenomenon? I
can't help but notice that our culture, particularly rock music, idolizes
artists who die young just as they tend to rate unfinished works of art too
highly. Does Cobain's importance rest solely on his achievements while alive
or have they been exaggerated by his early death?
--
-Brian in Atlanta >>
I think there are underrated artists and overrated artists, alive and dead.
I don't think Cobain is overrated. If Nevermind was his Hard Days Night then
In Utero was his Sgt. Pepper. It's roughly analogous to John Lennon if he had
died after Magical Mystery Tour. It's possible Cobain might have produced a lot
more great music, but it was clear (at least to me) that he wouldn't live long.
In Utero is seriously disturbed stuff, kind of a poetic suicide note set to
some rather intense punk riffing.It's fascinating in the way that Edgar Allen
Poe's morbid stories are, or Van Gogh's tortured, hallucinogenic flowers, but
didn't speak well for longevity. If he'd come out of his torment (such as
Plastic Ono band era John Lennon) he might have continued to be a force. He was
talking about breaking up Nirvana and collaborating with Michael Stipe.Would it
have been Cobain's Imagine?
As you say, "if he had only lived."
CYBERFLOYD
that I'm sort of Hillary fan. The fact that I cannot stand the hag
just doesn't register in your parallel universe, for some reason. >>
Oh, so you don't like Hillary Clinton? Well, that makes a lot more sense.
You're a cog in the Bush propaganda machine. That explains your tired
conservative platitudes, delivered in each post like a tidy Republican slogan.
You do seem the perfect type to be a political drone.
Funny thing though, every time I hurl a gentle gab at you, you squeal like a
stuck pig and try and take the moral high ground with your trite retorts, and
here you are calling the former First Lady a hag.
As insults were the only reason you entered this thread in the first place,
it seems obvious that you consider it OK as long as it's not directed at you.
Talking behind other people's backs is another one of your repugnant traits to
rear it's ugly head.
CYBERFLOYD
I'm in your head.
>>
I admire the tenacious way you hang on to your vanity if nothing else.
<< You are stupid, illiterate and make no sense whatsoever. You're an
embarrassment and an inconsequential boob. Time to drop you into the
bozo filter, pitiful creature that you are.
>>
Pretty good idea. While your lowbrow hi-jynx are good for a few giggles,
anybody who carries on a daily Usenet vendetta against Hillary Clinton is too
intense for me. I make it a policy not to deal with genuine crazys.
Bye.
Iggles
"D.G. Devin" <DGD...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
> Evidence sunshine, evidence, what you got? Every tour for the past
decade,
> Jagger has worn black shoes, black pants, and a t-shirt, that's his stage
> outfit. Maybe he comes out in a shiny silver jacket, which he throws
behind
> the amps after one or two numbers, big deal. Oh ya, Keith wore a
> fake-leopardskin coat when they hit the stage during the B2B tour, and
> beyond that, it's getting hard to think of what you're talking about, but
it
> seems important to you, so whatever.
It's not important to me at all. When you responded to my origninal post
you seemed to take offense that real musicians don't care what they wear on
stage. I was only speaking of the current tour. I was proud that Pete is
wearing plain jane clothes. When you get involved, I think you're
responding me to defend your other fav band. That was not my point at all.
I just made a simple fact. Pete (and Rog this tour) look a lot like Jerry
Garcia.
Iggles
"The Real Me" <emeral...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:doimmu0oiil88utht...@4ax.com...
> Well, according to the 2002 tour book, Pete's wardrobe is by Yves St.
> Laurent Pour Homme. Not that it looks it, but he and Roger just dress
> like regular guys. :-)
>
They look like they shopped at "The Gap".
D.G. Devin
>As I've always said in this thread, it's just my observation and
>opinion, but Roger and his shtick just seemed to age better than Mick
>and his. Yeah, it's biased, but it's my *opinion*.
And bless you for it, a lot of other folks have trouble telling the
difference between their opinion and Undeniable Scientifically Proven Fact.
Me, if I'm not clearly in the wrong at least half the time I start to worry.
And I don't know why I'm defending Jagger, I don't especially admire the
guy, in fact what I know of him tells me he's a bit of a bastard. Although
I do have to respect him professionally, he is a master showman and a
songwriter on a plane shared by only a handful of rock writers, Townshend,
Lennon/McCartney, Ray Davies, Chuck Berry, Dylan, not many others. Nice
talking with ya, nothing like a civil exchange of views between grownups.
;-)
Iggles
"D.G. Devin" <DGD...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
> And bless you for it, a lot of other folks have trouble telling the
> difference between their opinion and Undeniable Scientifically Proven
Fact.
> Me, if I'm not clearly in the wrong at least half the time I start to
worry.
I know this is directed at me, so I will respond. If you want an adult
conversation, stop blowing up innocent replies as devil's advocate. You
took something that was not even in your realm, and picked away. I wasn't
picking on that other band, I was just making a simple observation.
aka chelsea corazon
clothes aside, i sincerely doubt garcia ever had a sixpack like that. i give
roger credit for keeping fit. also, whatever he does wear fits him, it's in
the correct size. not too large nor too small. pete looks fit also,
and he's
never sloppy. they pay attention to what they wear, even if it's miminalist
and magritte-esque.
chelsea
aka chelsea corazon
you make a good point here, one that i've floated in another ng, that a creative
person does not have to be 'nice' to be compelling. none of the people you
mention above was/is exactly a sweetheart. in fact, they are mostly bizarre.
but the music, oh god, is to die for. as far as rd, in my book, he is now
beyond criticism of any sort. he is as close as a human can be to, um,
valhalla or whatever. and i would dream of being his valkyrie ;)
chelsea
(thinking of one of my favorite jagger songs, 'jigsaw puzzle'. brilliant.
in all fairness though, leatherface 2, aka keith richards should be included.)
D.G. Devin
>When you responded to my origninal post
>you seemed to take offense that real musicians don't care what they wear on
>stage.
From classical players in tuxedos, to jazz players in tailored suits to
rockers of all kinds (including the Who) in various costumes over the years,
lots of real musicians obviously care about what they wear on stage, if only
because its part of the act. I saw Ray Charles a few days ago, his band was
in black tie, he wore a jacket that he probably needed a permit for, it
looked like part of a space suit, not to mention some real dangerous
sunglasses. And I won't try to describe what the Raelettes were wearing, or
I'll have to go take a cold shower.
Personally I think it's very cool that the Who and the Stones no longer care
about that stuff and dress like they just came from a football game, but
their casual attire does not make them any more "real" as musicians than
when they dressed for the stage. I suspect we mostly agree on that, I just
took it that you thought the Stones were still dressing up in stage outfits
to go to work, and they really haven't done that for over a decade, the
occasional silly jacket aside.
D.G. Devin
>I know this is directed at me, so I will respond.
You are mistaken sir, I was not thinking of you in the least, although if it
makes you feel better to think so, that's fine.
>If you want an adult
>conversation, stop blowing up innocent replies as devil's advocate. You
>took something that was not even in your realm, and picked away. I wasn't
>picking on that other band, I was just making a simple observation.
I was under the impression that most of the conversational exchanges we have
had were mostly quite pleaseant, I wasn't aware that you were taking them
otherwise. It's difficult, these online chats, it's so easy for people to
get the wrong idea with the tone of voice and facial expressions and body
language we rely on during an in-person conversation missing, people get
offended or angry when the other guy thought it was a bit of a joke. I was
not meaning to be offensive, if I have unwittingly done that, I apologize.
I just thought we were talking about the Who and the Stones and rock music
in general, I didn't realize (with a few exceptions) that anybody was taking
it so seriously.
D.G. Devin
>you make a good point here, one that i've floated in another ng, that a
creative
>person does not have to be 'nice' to be compelling. [snip]
I think it's almost a requirement that especially creative people have to be
"difficult" in one way or another, the spicy mental stew that makes them so
creative also makes them a pain in the ass. Surely Pete Townshend is a good
example, and I for one would not want to go on a camping trip with the
members of the Rolling Stones. So I love the music, and I can't help but
have some affection for the people who make it, but I'm under no illusions
as to what kind of people they are when offstage, they are surely as petty
and vain and selfish and ignorant etc. as all the rest of us.
Iggles
"aka chelsea corazon" <kare...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D6C6C10...@mindspring.com...
>> clothes aside, i sincerely doubt garcia ever had a sixpack like that. i
give
> roger credit for keeping fit. also, whatever he does wear fits him, it's
in
> the correct size. not too large nor too small. pete looks fit also,
> and he's
> never sloppy. they pay attention to what they wear, even if it's
miminalist
> and magritte-esque.
Ok Pete and Rog don't look like Persian heroin smoking slobs, but the attire
is the same.
Tunzter
>From: "D.G. Devin" DGD...@worldnet.att.invalid
> Still wears the "handcuffs" braclet
>though, to remind him of his heroin bust in Toronto.
There's a story that says, after he was released on bail, he asked the
arresting officers if he could have a bit of the evidence to hold him over
until he could score.
2nz
D.G. Devin
>Hehehehe. I never thought I'd see such art references on Usenet. Who
>fans are certainly an eclectic bunch. :-D
Well, The Who do use some weird lighting these days, not overdone, but
striking.
Brian in Atlanta
>and magritte-esque.
Oh dear, is Roger wearing a large green apple over his face again?
--
-Brian in Atlanta
Iggles
"D.G. Devin" <DGD...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
Then I apologise, but your consistency is damn intense. You know I
appreciate the Stones, but you seem to have this inner alarm when they are
being discussed in a slight negative tone that you try to use all the Who's
skeletons to counter it. If it's all in fun, then that's fine too.
D.G. Devin
>Eclectic, not electric! <G>
I was referring to the paintings. A whole year of Art History 101, wasted.
aka chelsea corazon
The Real Me wrote:
> Hehehehe. I never thought I'd see such art references on Usenet. Who
> fans are certainly an eclectic bunch. :-D
oh, i threw that in just for roger, in case he ever reads the ng, just
to let him know
i've listened to, and own a vinyl copy of, 'one of the boys' .
chelsea
(beautiful singing, but 'giddy' must be the worst song paul mccartney
ever wrote.) :)
>
> --
> R.I.P. John Entwistle (10/9/44 - 6/27/02) We'll never forget
>
> "Every one of the innocents who died on Sept. 11 was the most important person on earth to somebody.
> Every death extinguished a world." -- President George W. Bush, 12/11/2001
>
> www.hillary-watch.org