peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (08/14/83)
There's a theory that good groups are bound to break up as the creative tensions that make the music good in the first place are bound to eventually tear the group apart, or compromises are made to keep the band together, making the music less interesting. Anyone got any good counter-examples to this, and reasons why the group might have stayed together so long? This is possibly an interesting way to find some new groups to explore.
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (08/16/83)
Oh, boy, another opportunity to plug my favorites! Good counterexamples
to the break-up syndrome are the Grateful Dead, Rolling Stones, and the Who
(it's only a rumor!). These guys never seem to grow old. The Dead are still
writing new and different material, Jagger is still a sex symbol at 40+,
and Townshend is still doing pinwheels on his guitar. All these groups have
gone through personnel changes but still hang tough, and in all cases none of
the original creativity that made them great has been lost. I, too, would
be interested in hearing people's theories as to why these particular groups
have held together for 15+ years, while other great groups, like the Beatles,
have been unable to hold it together.
--
GREG
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | menlo70}
!hao!woodsdce@tekecs.UUCP (David Elliott) (08/17/83)
Bullshit! First of all, those groups stayed together because none of the members in any of the groups had enough individual talent to go solo (look at what happened to Ringo). Now you say to me, what about Townshend. Sure, I admit he's done well with those two solo albums, but he didn't leave the Who to do them, and the albums are not that great. Another reason those groups are still together is that it is a job. What else could they do to make that much money? As far as creativity, the Stones and the Who can not even come near what they were doing in the mid-sixties. Can you compare any of their current songs to "My Generation" or "Live with Me"? The Dead are the same old hippies that they have always been, and are allowed to stay around just to make us laugh at what the hippies were like. As for the Beatles, they were a famous group, but not a great one. If it weren't for the media hype, the Beatles would never have amounted to anything. Their music was played to the point that everyone recognizes all of the songs. This caused a whole generation of older brothers and sisters who had Beatles albums that were just about all that the young kids had to listen to. Since I had no older siblings to be brainwashed by, I bought my Beatles albums, listened to them, and trashed all but one, "Beatles IV", which has some nice old songs that influenced a lot of other bands of the era (Jerry and the Pacemakers, etc.). I was able to listen to the Beatles with an objective point of view and I still find their music boring. The reason groups break up nowadays has a lot to do with money and artistic freedom. If you don't sell enough albums, you don't get to make any more. If you can't afford to tour, you can't sell enough albums. If you can't make any albums, why stay together. As for Jagger and Townshend being great performers after all these years, I admit that's true. Just remember that it's not age that makes you old, it's attitude. Henry Fonda is old. Reagan is old. Buddy Rich is old. Lot's of people are older than Mick and Pete and still going strong. David
tbray@mprvaxa (08/19/83)
1. Townshend's solo efforts are GREAT 2. If you find Beatles albums boring, what are you doing discussing rock and roll? Name a better rock and roll album than the white album. 3. Henry Fonda is DEAD.
dce@tekecs.UUCP (David Elliott) (08/20/83)
1) Townshend's solo efforts are OK. They are no better than any other
albums by good musicians.
2) The Beatles are not the original rock and roll band. They are just
one of the most famous. I can name quite a few better rock and roll
albums than the white album : The Nazz, Any Chuck Berry album,
"No More Heroes" by the Stranglers, "Never Mind the Bollocks", Any
Bowie Album (except for "Let's Dance"), Any pre-1980 UFO album,
"For Your Pleasure" by Roxy Music, "Meet The Beatles", "My
Generation", "Third Reich and Roll" by the Residents, Both New
York Dolls albums.
I really get tired of hearing about how great the Beatles were.
The music industry is full of leaches who have learned how to
make most people believe that whatever sells is good (look at
disco, if you can stomach it).
3) I meant Henry Ford.
By the way, I admire you for replying to my article. The only other
responses I got were about my Fonda mistake ("On Golden Pond" was
on TV the night before, so I forgot he was dead. He looked alive
enough to me.).
You have to realize that I was not brought up listening to white
rock music. The first record I ever owned was "Want Ads" by
Jean Knight. This may account for the fact that I can distinguish
between 'Popular' and 'Good'.
Davidandy@mit-eddie.UUCP (Andy Jones) (08/31/83)
The things which you said about The Who, as well as other fine
groups, are inexcusable, and now I prepare to tell you why.
First of all, as to what you said about why groups stay
together, I don't know why the Stones stay together and I agree with
you on the point that they are just cheap immitations of what they once
were. The Who, on the other hand, stay together, because even though
they do have many personal conflicts with one and other they have been
able to rise above that and continue to make great music together (for
example "Emminence Front","It's Hard", and "The Quiet One").
To say that none of The Who have done good solo work would be
idiotic, to say the least. First of all, to correct you, Pete Townshend
has made four solo albums ("Who Came First","Empty Glass","All The Best
Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes", and "Scoop") all of which are superb, if not
works of art. Not only has Roger Daltrey done great solo work musically
("Giving It All Away","Free Me"), but he is also a fine actor as
displayed in "Tommy","Lisztomania",and "Mc Vicar". And I doubt that you
have even listened to an Entwhistle solo, which, in most cases is as
incredible as it is ominous.
I believe I have already answered your idiotic statement about
the creativity of The Who, so I will not waste my breath or my ink on
that point again. I also will not hound you anymore on what you said
about The Beatles because although you were horribly wrong you have
already taken enough of a beating and I hope you have learned your
lesson.
And in closing I would like to ask all my fellow Who fans out
there to drop me a line because I'm always glad to talk about The Who!!!
Andy Jones (Who fan)
genrad!mit-eddie!andy
P.S. LONG LIVE ROCK ! ! !
P.P.S. This is my first submission to netnews.dce@tekecs.UUCP (David Elliott) (09/01/83)
Already taken enough of a beating? I got more agreement than a beating. The only beating I got was for mentioning that Henry Fonda (I meant FORD, dammit) was old, when he is actually dead. As for the Who : Yes, they have all made good solo efforts, but there is no way you can tell me that any of their solo albums are one-tenth as good as any of their pre-Tommy albums. In addition, you are touting their solo works, when we are talking about "groups". The article I originally answered asked why groups like the Who and the Stones stayed together so long, not why the individuals are still making music. I stand by my original reason : It's a job. How many of these guys could get a job in "The high paying field of data processing"? I know they aren't idiots, but what else can they do? There is so much competition in the music business today that they have to keep going on the strength of their names. How many people do you know that could say "I think I'll make a top 10 album" and actually do it? I know a number of people that are as talented as any member of the Who, or the Stones, or the Beatles, but could put out a record with twelve songs that are better than anything on any of Townshend's solo albums and not sell 10 copies. I am also a Who fan, but only of their music that came before "Tommy". I feel that they died when they made that album. I admire all of those superstar groups of the '70s, because if it were not for the fact that they put out bland albums once a year and charged $15 to see uninspired shows (I've seen the Who 3 times and the Stones twice), The Ramones and Sex Pistols would never have existed. All in all, your letter is what I would expect from someone who listens to his friends and the radio instead of looking for something enjoyable to suit his individual tastes. I was like that, too. I owned Beatles albums and couldn't wait until Foghat came to town. I decided that I was a clone and sisn't like that. I hear some of my old favorites on the radio and think "how could I have been so excited about that boring music?". I found enjoyment by looking for albums by groups that are so obscure that I still can't find them. I began playing my own music, which is no longer an act of ripping off riffs from rock stars, but is an act of combining things that I've heard before in ways that they haven't been combined before. I like to listen to groups that do different things, not the same thing they, and a lot of others, have been doing for years. David Elliott tektronix!tekecs!dce PS - "Rock is dead". PPS - Welcome to the net, where your opinion is subject to being ripped to shreds by the best.