(Pete) Townshend fuming over Fahrenheit row

I always though the Who sucked...now I have proof.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Rock legend Pete Townshend has launched a scathing attack at film-maker Michael Moore, saying he has been "bullied and slurred" by the director.

Last year, the Stupid White Men author Moore approached the The Who guitarist to ask the star permission to use his song Won't Get Fooed Again in his controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which criticises George Bush's administration.

Townshend refused to let the Oscar-winning director use the song, because the rocker didn't enjoy Moore's previous films Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me.

Townshend fumes: "Michael Moore has been making some claims, using my name, which distort the truth.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=110409222&p=yyx4x99z8

NT

to paraphrase a scene from Moore's the Big One "Pedophiles For Bush!"

but not that kind...

NT

back in the Act and we do not talk of those bad times!

:-)

NT

Peter, Paul and Mary:

Peter Yarrow, Noel "Paul" Stookey and Mary Travers

August 31, 1970 - Peter Yarrow arrested for taking "immoral liberties" with girl, 14

It's Townshend. He was eventually cleared of the charges.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/petetownshend1.html

I guess I should have written "cleared".

It's the law in England.

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" are you having trouble with?

:shrug:

also, I remember reading an article about him that said he had lived as a woman at one time. He seems to be confused about some things. I never liked their music much either.

And he was indeed researching. The charges were trumped up and then correctly dropped.

... become abusers in turn. Why is it OK for him to do "research" on kiddie porn?????

Beat hell out of any child abuser you want--but don't tar Townshend without having a clue

What exactly is artisitic about kiddie porn????? He said he was already abused. What did he need to research????

Aerosmith wrote "Jany Got a Gun" without looking at 8 year olds getting ass-fucked. Why does Townsend need to????

The art would not be in the kiddie porn, but in the way Townshend turned the traumas he recalled and the traumas he witnessed into something that would connect with audiences who would otherwise not be able to understand the extent of his rage over abuse (which has appeared repeatedly in his ouevre: "Unlce Ernie," "I'm a Boy").

I believe he aired it in Rolling stone ages ago.

And, how about these lyrics from Townsends solo album

Tough boys
Running the streets
Come a little closer
Rough toys
Under the sheets
Nobody knows her
Rough boys
Don’t walk away
I very nearly missed you
Tough boys
Come over here
I wanna bite and kiss you

I wanna see what I can find
Tough kids
Take a bottle of wine
When your deal is broken
Ten quid
She’s so easy to find
Not a word is spoken
Rough boys
Don’t walk away
I’m still pretty blissed here
Tough boy
I’m gonna carry you home
You got pretty pissed dear

Gonna get inside you
Gonna get inside your bitter mind

Rough boys
Don’t walk away
I wanna buy you leather
Make noise
Try and talk me away
We can’t be seen together
Tough kids
What can I do?
I’m so pale and weedy
Rough fits
In my hush puppy shoes
But I’m still pleading

Tough boys
Running the streets
Come a little closer
Rough toys
Under the sheets
Nobody knows her
Rough boys
Don’t walk away
I very nearly missed you
Tough boys
Come over here
I wanna bite and kiss you

I wanna see what I can find!

uh huh. Oh Pete, ya old nonce!

If you recall, there was no basis for charges against Pete Townsend, nothing was found on his computers, and the charges were dropped.

I wish you would not make accusational posts against an honorable man. You do yourself and DU an injustice by posting rubbish like that that's more suited for Free Republic, IMHO.

I'm awaiting your retraction, but I'm not holding my breath....

I hope you were simply making a lame attempt at satirical humor there.

I will post what he said about Moore:

"I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him just because he didn't get what we wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful
and willful man at the centre of his documentary.

"He says that I refused to allow him to use my song Won't Get Fooled Again in his latest film because I support the war. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq, I was a supporter. But now I am less sure we did the right thing.

end of quote

When you know what Townsend actually said (and kiddie porn allegations aside), his learning curve seems to mirror that of a lot of prominent Democrats (for better or worse). So, it might be better to lay off Townsend on this one.

On a related note: The Who is overrated -- the movie's music I am sure, is better for the track's omission. That reminds me -- I must get a bus and go see that movie today. S'it any good?

If the Dixie Chicks and Moby can be bullied I say we lay into their side when given a chance. or at least point out the hypocrisy when they attack our supporting rockers.

Candidate Kerry supported the Iraq War at first. In fact, semantic quibbles aside, he basically voted for it. When you criticize Townsend here, you implicitly criticize Kerry.

and if Chimpy wasn't such a threat to decency I would not vote for Kerry.

Bring a handkerchief.

Even my Dad, brother and cousin, who I think are more liberal than me, supported the war in Iraq. I've since brought my brother and dad back to planet earth, but my cousin is still confused. I just told her to go see F-911 and then we can talk. She will then say "Saddam was bad, but BushcoII is worse".

They did some phenomenal stuff in the 60's and 70's. "Sell Out" was the best reaction to "Sgt. Pepper" that ever came out, and "Who's Next" was great. They also had a few great singles on some marginal albums.

But the modern day legacy of The Who is an embarrassment. They went on too long, to the point nowadays where it's just the two surviving members (they didn't even cancel their tour when their original bass player died of a cocaine overdose) and a bunch of backing musicians, orchestra members and backing singers. The Who has simply become a lounge act, and looks even more ridiculous when Pete Townshend says ridiculous things to the media (he wished he were a woman, the child porn thing, and now this).

I don't see his views of the Iraq War to be hypocritical, since they positioned themselves as the anti-hippie band, but methinks Pete has had too much of a blend of loud noise, excessive booze and bad drugs. For his own sake, and his band's legacy, he should hang it up. Time has not been kind to The Who. They have become the epitomy of commercial whores living off their past. Nobody really cares about them.

The best reaction to Sgt. Pepper (an LP I mostly dislike), was "It's Monk Time" by the Monks. This is kind of surprising when one considers that the Monks LP came earlier in time that Pepper's.

On edit: its even more surprising when you consider that the Monks were American GIs stationed overseas.

Who are they?

"Sgt. Pepper" is okay, but overrated. "Pet Sounds" by the Beach Boys is also highly overrated. It has some nice songs, but Brian Wilson is the world's worst producer. The Beach Boys didn't start recording in stereo until the 70's, and there's background noise and chatter in just about every song they've ever recorded.

The Rolling Stones' "Satanic Majesty's Request" is just plain pandering. Just shit.

http://www.the-monks.com/

Be warned: their music is as harsh and confrontational and strange as their looks.

I am not familiar with the Stones LP you cite, but Let It Bleed LP is excellent. I can't stand Exile (except tumblin' dice). I can't believe that Pepper's and Exile are always seen asw superior works.

Not liking _Exile_ is a matter of taste, but not knowing what many people consider the most ill-advised move of a major band's career is pretty flabbergastingly rock-illiterate. So how in the world do you know the Monks??

but I don't know it as an album.

My tastes do run to the obscure. Unfortunately, this can sometimes divert my attention from classic rock groups to some degree. Only so many hrs in a day and all.

On edit: Don't get me wrong -- the Monks aren't one of my 10 fave bands or even 20 fave bands. I just think they are the best, errrr, substitute for The Who.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006AW2M/qid=1089470557/sr=1-17/ref=sr_1_17/102-9517618-4605768?v=glance&s=music



1. Sing This All Together
2. Citadel
3. In Another Land
4. 2000 Man
5. Sing This All Together (See What Happens)
6. She's a Rainbow
7. The Lantern
8. Gomper
9. 2000 Light Years from Home
10. On With the Show

"She's A Rainbow" is probably the most recognized song on the album, if you listen to a lot of classic rock radio (like I do).

The rest of the album is forgettable.

"Exile" is a pretty good album, and I get a few chuckles listening to "Goat's Head Soup" ("Star Star" is the unofficial Dick Cheney theme song).

I'll never forget Jagger was sitting in on one of the Sgt Pepper sessions and he's looking at McCartney like a little kid...


I'm getting old....

The album with Can You Hear Me Knocking, Sister Morphine, and Moonlight Mile was much better*


*I might be combining songs from two albums....



Anyway... The Stones are a great band and I'm glad I got to see them live but not as glad as I was to see Paul McCartney live....

I saw McCartney live 7-04-90 at RFK Stadium in Washington DC.... Even though there was another Bush in the White House America was a much happier place....

IMHO this was a brilliant album in its own acid-laden way. Brian Jones plays all kinds of instruments, gets busted and loses his "chick" to Keith while this hidden treasure was being recorded. Bill Wyman actually sings a song and there are many oddities to the whole affair. Yes it was hastily made, shoddily produced by the Stones themselves and light years from Beggars Banquet, but it is very interesting listening (perhaps only historically) and a precursor to GOTH. I like to listen to it once every year or two if only to remember where rock comes from.

I loved and still love Satanic Majesties Request.


Oh, and Brian Jones was a musical genius.

The one that if you don't have the original LP with a Warhol cover then you don't have diddly.

Also 2000 Man and 2000 Light Years from Home are great.

I think the whole album is good in fact.

you don't know _Satanic Majesties_ unbless you know it as an album, with its distinctive artwork.

I haven't heard the songs (except perhaps "She's A Rainbow" and "2000 Light Years").

...It was in 3-D!

and I would agree. Opinion is a funny thing.

...I still listen to it now and then which I can't say for any of their other albums.

Exile is the Stones' FINEST album, IMO.

is a beautiful song if you like that kind of stuff....

and the rest of that beautifully-composed, beautifully performed, beautifully-produced album.,

The Beach Boys created some beautiful songs for "Pet Sounds", but Brian Wilson should have brought in an outside producer to help out.

Brian is partially deaf, and his work shows it. Nothing wrong with that, but it hindered them. They were the last high-profile band to embrace stereo, and you can hear lots of conversation and background noise (door creaking, fan blowing, coughing) on their songs. Pretty sloppy work.

Scary thing is, their stereo stuff sounded pretty bad, too. But I think that was mostly due to the material and their later insistence of using synthesizers and drum machines on their studio stuff.

Or not. I don't think I'm going to convince you that _Pet Sounds_ is the sixties saddest album, a last-ditch effort to seize the pleasures of childhood while looking mortality square in the eye, am I?

in convincing very many people of that point. Pet Sounds is a brilliant fucking album. Period.

on edit: I see what you're getting at here. Sorry. Didn't read the exchange first.

although I'd not go as far as _NME_ did several years back when it selected _Pet Sounds_ the "greatest album ever."

Esp[ecially how the vocals flow....

In 1966 Paul McCartney called God Only Knows the best song ever written. Paul's passion for Pet Sounds has only increased through the years as he recently recalled "Pet Sounds was my inspiration for making Sgt. Peppers..... the big influence Pet Sounds flipped me... Still one of my favorite albums of all time, just cause of the musical invention, wow...... That was the big thing for me in 1968... I just thought Oh dear me.... This is the album of all time. What are we gonna do?"

I'm not quite sure I've ever heard such absurd remarks on these two brilliant musical works. What are you smokin?

1. "Sgt. Pepper" is overrated, I agree, but it's definitely better than OK. I think for many people of a certain age, it's one of those "you had to be there" cultural moments.

2. "Pet Sounds" is most certainly NOT overrated, but an extremely solid record in almost all aspects. Some details about what you find lacking would be helpful here.

3. I don't know where you get off saying Brian Wilson is the world's worst producer. General consensus is that with the recording of "Pet Sounds" and "Good Vibrations", he revolutionized music production in a way that hadn't been achieved since Phil Spector started twirling knobs. Listen to the box set of "The Pet Sounds Sessions" and you'll hear what the working process of a true master producer sounds like.

4. Brian Wilson is deaf in one ear, which is the reason he has given for why he recorded in mono for so long. In any case, there are number of hardcore audiophiles who swear that the downfall of audio quality began with the introduction of stereo. You couldn't get these people to part with the mono copies of their 60s recordings for anything in the world.

5. There's definitely a lot of background noise and chatter in some Beach Boys songs. Chalk this up to the fact that recording in the mid-60s required multiple generations of bouncing to get anywhere near the number of tracks we have available to us today. If it got on during an early generation of the tape, it stayed there.

6. "Their Satanic Majesties Request" is definitely pandering, I'll give you that. But you aren't seriously be calling "She's a Rainbow" "just shit", are you?

1. I like "Sgt. Pepper". It is a great album. But I think "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul" are way better. "Sgt. Pepper" just seems to be at the top of most critics' lists. That's why I call it 'overrated'. Not because it's not good (it is very good) but because they did much better work.

2-5. "Pet Sounds" has some terrific songs, and Brian Wilson had some great ideas. "Good Vibrations" is an excellent example. I like the instrumentation in it a lot. I just think the sound quality is sloppy. Wilson was a better visionary than technophile. Compare the Beach Boys' work to that of the early George Martin-produced Beatles mono works. Very clean, and very punchy. And a lot of it was done on four tracks or less. I think the Beatles' original mono recordings sound better and more vibrant than the fake stereo versions. But they really started to sound great when they switched to stereo.

BTW, I'm a firm believer that many of the best quality recordings are from the mid and late 60s. The music had punch and spirit. The stuff recorded nowadays just has no emotion. The production is lifeless.

6. I like "She's A Rainbow" (as I mentioned in another post). Just think the album is over the top.

...their first album was recorded in 1 day using a simple 4 track process(and that they played each song live in the studio), then they loaded the van and went back on tour...thats a group of real musicians for you. there are a ton of bands that are still trying to get that dark, raw sound out of their albums.

contemporary bands. The Who stopped recording studio albums in the early 1980s.

THe Who still has a huge fan base so I don't know what you mean "nobody really cares for them."

Who do you like? Which albums?

and *not* a hardcore supporter of this mistake. Just someone who trusted the guy in the White House too much.

but, same damn thing, really.

EOM

(just speculating here, of course)

_The Who Sings My Generation_
_A Quick One_
_Sell Out_
"Overture," "Underture," "Sparks," "Pinball Wizard," "See Me, Feel Me" from _Tommy_
_Live at Leeds_ (whatever the latest configuration of the CD is)
_Meaty, Beaty, Big and Bouncy_
_Odds and Sods_
_Who's Next_
_Quadrophenia_ (turned up all the way)

and that's where I let them fade away (though I can make it through _Who By Numbers_ and _Who Are You_ if I'm forced to).

They may, in fact, have been better than the Monks.

because Rob't Pollard used to go on and on about this LP.

I didn't like it and gave it away after 5 or 6 lis'sens.

I've burned out "Quadrophenia" on LP (3 copies, two of which came with the original booklet), eight-track (1), cassette (6+) and CD (I'm on my second copy now). It may not be the best album ever, but it surely is one of my favorites.
The Who WERE the soundtrack of my life when I was sixteen or so.
John
Having crossed paths with MM, I can attest that Pete Townshend wouldn't be the only guy who ever thought that Moore was pushy. And, living in a blue-collar (but quite Democratic) community, I know lots of folks who thought going in and capturing/killing Saddam Hussein was a pretty good idea (I wasn't one of them).
Either way, they're just Pete's opinions -- however one chooses to take them -- and he's got a right to them. No reason to make enemies where one doesn't have to.

his reason for refusing to allow the song to be used.

where Townsend explains himself more fully. He attempts to explain that: (1) the intended political message of his song was pretty irrelevant to the situation in the Middle East; (2) the political message of F911 would therefore obscure the political message of the song; and (3) he thinks songs are a more important form of political communication than movies (implying that it was important not to confuse the song for the sake of a mere movie). Maybe this is all ad hoc, after-the-fact justification, or maybe it is not. Judge for yourself -- I have no guidance to give on this question.

One post on this thread speculates that Townsend in his (2002/2003 era) support for the Iraq War trusted the White House too much. However, it seems equally possible to me that Townsend was watching the Democratic Party and England's Labour Party capitulating to the war without any opposition and he was putting his trust in the leadership of those (worthy) political parties, rather than trusting the WH directly.

Of course, Townsend has indicated that he now has reservations about the war, but it is not clear whether he was "fooled" by watching the (active) behavior of the Rs or the (passive) behavior of the Ds. Perhaps it is best not to place too much trust in either party. You would have thought that he would have learned that lesson from the Viet Nam war (a previous, questionable war supported by both Rs and Ds). In fact, as I type this, Rob't McNamara is on my tv explaining that the 20,000 anti-Viet Nam protesters who showed up at his workplace didn't influence his thinking about Viet Nam at all (gee, who does that remind one of?).

Alternative possibility: We also know that Townsend was in some legal trouble at the relevant time. Maybe he wanted to minimize the entering of new royalty agreements until it was clear that the royalty money would not be garnished in some way by criminal or civil penalties.

If Townshend owns the rights to his own music, then he also has the right to say where it's used and for what.

Townsend MUST let Moore use the song? Under no circumstances can he decide for himself?

Since when does everybody on the planet have to do what Moore says?

There's no story here.

and The Who rocks!

cause Zeppelin rocks!

Led Zeppelin rocks too

Neither can hold a candle to AEROSMITH!

But Peter is a musical giant.


Who here thinks transgendered persons are freaks (many bigots raise their hands)

Maybe not, but there is a whiny washed-up rock star.

Not bad for a Saturday morning!

I haven't....

Word of mouth would be easy to believe. PT has surely kept the company of Kings and people of prominence we have never even heard of. Not to mention music mafiosos. Michael Moore has a mouth.

I am not aware what brought up the row. Thanks.

from an on-line Blog I believe is actually written by Townshend

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.

He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.

When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.

Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.

At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.

I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.

I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.

Pete

"But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar. "

Other than selling "Won't Get Fooled Again" as theme music for CSI:Miami, I can't figure how Townsend has "changed the world" in any discernible way.

he has made it possible to be described as a great guitarist while not squeezing off one decent solo.

whatever he wants is OK with me. Cant you just be happy Im in the film? Nothing compares to Townshends solo work, so just lay off one of God's gifts to rock and roll.
Remember if you will when Bush tried to use their tune in his campaign?
I suspect Pete has a chronic problem with the media, and doesnt see Moore as any different. He has a history of behaving as a pathological liar in interviews. Whether this is willfully intentional or a psychosis I dunno. GO PETE THESE FUCKS ALWAYS TRY TO CRUCIFY YOU ANYWAY.

you need to listen to more music...Hendrix perhaps...Zappa....Alvin Lee...Page

Since I have just about every last bit of Zappa and Zeppelin maybe you can suggest something I havent already memorized? I happen to be a full on Beefheart/Crimson/Eno/Belew nutcase and any of them are giants compared to your suggestions.

try Johnny Cash...

Ever heard of Clapton, Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Robin Trower...

take his name off the list unless it includes latter day Phil Collins.
Beck is one of the best guitar players (but he isnt a songwriter) and he says Belew IS the best. Hendrix hasnt released a record for a few years. You can have Trower.

I guess you never heard White Room,Badge, Layla, Sunshine Of Your Love,I Feel Free. Mainline Florida...


And that's for starters...


Comparing Clapton with a soft boy like Phil Collins is like comapring George Bush with George Washington...

Collins sappy crap is Clapton's ideal. Ask him. Cream is great and Clapton is an asshole. I prefer The Core to any of those short of I Feel Free. There aint much mainstream 60's rock I havent heard so stop removing all doubt.

Clapton's body of work includes at least four eras...


I'm primarily referring to his work in the 60's and early 70's...

... went downhill fast after the Derek album. He did some really great stuff before tho' :)

And I still remember the first time I saw him do a Michelob commercial. Pathetic.

461 Ocean Boulevard, and parts of Slowhand, Backless (Roll It !) and Another Ticket all have merit. I think after that, (Michelob Era) he went down hill. To his credit he introduced Keith Richard once saying "At least he didn't sell his soul out for a beer commercial."

I saw Clapton in the 90's. Not life changing, but he was professional, and took the time to walk around behind the stage to play to the poor schleps (me and my brother among them) stuck with seats there.

I agree his creative output has dwindled (especially the sad, yet kind of cloying ode to his kid).

.... I don't have much respect for Pete T as a person, as a musician and especially songwriter he is one of the all time greats period.

He did a couple solo albums, one with Ronnie Lane called Rough Mix.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more poignant and moving set of songs anywhere.

pages about my history as a musician, music lover and WHO fan. I saw them the first time they played in the US. Woodstock was the about the ninth time I had seen them. I just happened to enjoy them, though I've seen just about every rock act from that era more than once.
I'm a musician and I love music. I don't care to argue who is best etc, I got over that 30 years ago.

Anyway, the point I am coming around to is that I've always cut Pete and the WHO slack as far as commercialism (something I generally despise in music) because they always said they were commercial and even did a Coke commercial in the sixties. I thought OK fine. I know Pete has recently sold his music for commercials and television.
I really didn't care much until I saw "Happy Jack" used in a Hummer commercial. That basically was the limit for me. In light of this, Pete acting like he gives a shit about what his music is used for is sort of perplexing.

I've read about the child porn thing and I tend to believe him in light of his passionate statements in the past against it. I may be wrong. I hope I'm not.

As far as Pete and the war, I think he has been just like a lot of "foolish" people who didn't bother questioning the Iraq-9/11 connection. He spends a great deal of time in NY and has always raved about how he loves NY and feels at home there. I know 9/11 was upsetting to him as it was to many NYers. I wish people like him would care enough to educate themselves more but thats his business.

Pete can have whatever political views he wants. My problem is that he makes statements about changing the world with a guitar while he lets his song be used for a Hummer commercial. Well Hummers can change the world, climate too. :-(

As a life long WHO fan, I have to say I really find it hard to take Pete seriously anymore.

edit: I still think the WHO shows I attended stand at a pinacle of great rock concerts and I've been to a lot of concerts in my life.
There will never be another WHO.

Sorry I will not trash Townsend; he’s been through way too, much. I heard a story recently about a plane flight that was held on the tarmac back in 1970 by the government because Pete inadvertently made a comment that they mistook to mean that there was a bomb on board a plane. He was talking about a concert, but they’d tried to charge him with something like terrorist threatening. I think the man’s just paranoid and they go after him every chance they get and the kiddie porn was just one more time. That’s my take and I still love the Who and Pete Townsend’s music.

(Remember when he announced to the world that he was really a woman? That was back in the 80s)

Cincinnati show in late 1979. Plus, Pete is also deaf in one ear -- from years of exposure to loud noise. Yes, he certainly has been through a lot in his life.

and I don't give a fuck what any one thinks of me or them!

like the Smothers Bros. performance with the triple shot of explosives in the drum kit.

KaBOOOM !

nothing else. He pushed Abbie Hoffman off the stage at Woodstock because Abbie interupted thier set. I think Pete would have pushed his own Mother off the stage if she had done the same. Listen to the albums and you see that it is the Music and Life, not politics, just Music and Life. Pete is a God in my book.

From Pete's website:

http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=89&zone=diary

(NOTE: No copyright statement on the site, and it loads erratically, so I posted his whole 'diary' entry.)

Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.

He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.

When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.

Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.

At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.

I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.

I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.

Pete

He must think "CSI" is more accurate, since they use Who songs prominently in each of their two shows.

scroll up

But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.

No, ego played no part in this. Somehow, I don't think Moore's point was to say that guitar players are below documentary film producers. I think Moore's point was that Townsend's song could help him communicate the point "We won't get fooled again".

until someone makes a choice with which they disagree. Townsend has every right to refuse to let Moore use his music. Townsend is an artist and owns his art. It is as simple as that.

The art in question is a-okay as long as it's in lockstep with the predominant political tidal wave. :eyes:

Guess there isn't much difference between FR and DU in regards to dismissing artists who don't go lock-step with the boards POV

When you look at what Townshend and The Who did for rock you have to look at their live performances. Between 1965 and about 1972 there was no better live band...none. The power and genius of their music is best experienced live. All bands eventually lose their "magic" along their lifecycle. You just can't keep it up. Townshend makes no apologies for The Who tours of late...as he says this is his life...his work and he is free to do with it as he pleases.

The Who in 1967 would blow any band...ANY BAND off the stage. The Who in 1969 would leave any other band...ANY BAND...packing their equipment and heading for the tour bus.

The Who were about the live experience. If you never experienced a Who concert...the original Who with Keith Moon...then you cannot comment on the band. You can trash their music and their later history but to not recognize what they brought to live rock performance is simply ignorance.

Thank you Pete for your art and your candor.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Plus the WHo recorded some of the most innovative studio albums. Tommy, WHo's Next, Quadrophenia.

These Who haters are probably quite ignorant of their body of work.

Roger Daltry but I never liked the Who. I sort of fizzled off a lot of bands about 1970. I would rather listen to Janis Joplin.

One of the greatest artists of the last half century whose work is infused with his fierce opposition to politics, advertising, and every form of propaganda has an unsurprising dispute with Michael Moore, a gifted film-maker/propagandist.

"Won't Get Fooled Again" is an artistic statement that all politics involves dishonest manipulation of people. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a highly dishonest and manipulative political work.

So why the hell should Townshend have lent the song to the film?

As for the stunted notion that this flap contains information about Townshend's work... The political views held by an artist hold no information about the quality of the artist's work. None. Zero. If one deduces artistic merit from political purity tests then one has nothing credible to say about the arts.

I opposed the Iraq war as much as anyone did (not boilerplate; I seriously doubt many people were more opposed) and I say Pete Townshend is worth ten of Michael Moore. There is no inconsistency there.

I'm really sick of the prevailing attitude here that Michael Moore somehow invented dissent.

I can appreciate both Moore and Townshend for what they do. But Townshend and the Who have made a bigger mark on art and culture than Moore has, at least up to this point.

NT

That would be foolish.

Pete has every right to think what he wants about Michael Moore or the war in Iraq. I just think the guy's washed up.

And considering how much The Who have made whores out of themselves in the past two decades, with the tacky nostalgia tours and broadway musicals, and Pete not knowing when not to speak to the media, I think they should have retired long ago.

It's funny that Pete will license his music to almost anyone waving money in his face. The Who's legacy now is of the band that did the theme to those "CSI " shows.

Pete has phenomenal talent, but he's kind of a flake.

Please explain.

F9/11 doesn't even pretend to be honest. It's opinion... it's subjective. It's like Bunuel's LAND WITHOUT BREAD; a wonderful piece of political film-making that meets none of the standards of processes like journalism, science or jurisprudence that claim to seek objective truths.

Playing the guitar riff from "cocaine" while highlighting Bush's name is neither honest nor dishonest. It's insinuation, comedy, commentary... whatever it is, it's using the techniques of a persuasive medium to make a suggestive case that cannot be made in the realm of facts and evidence. I think Bush was probably a big coke-head, but I cannot prove it. Neither can Michael Moore (or, if he can he does a disservice by withholding the evidence.)

Argument by juxtaposition isn't what we usually call honest. Showing people shaking hands with Saudis is not argument... it's a smear technique.

Facile political games with imagery fill me with dread, even if employed in a good cause. There were innumerable points where F9/11 reminded me of DER EWIGE JUDE, the 1940 German propaganda film famous for it's constant juxtaposition of images of Jews with images of swarming rats. That kind of "truth through art" approach is not really about true or false. I was also reminded of the Monty Python gasoline ad wherein "the white square pushes the black square off the face of the Earth, thereby demonstrating that..."

I enjoyed F9/11 and will probably pay to see it again at some point. I hope everyone sees it because it's effective advocacy for the broad proposition that Bush is some kind of monster, which I agree with.

But it's not a religion! I used to know a communist who hated the Beatles' music because the song Revolution disrespects Mao. I felt that was a pretty poor method to assess music. I still do.

And for true F9/11 infallibility cultists... if Pete Townshend sucks so bad, why did the messiah known as Moore want to use Pete's song in the first place?

Brilliant commentary. Thank you. :thumbsup:

but I didn't read anywhere that anyone said Moore invested dissent. He has, however, given it a higher profile in popular culture though, and to which I say good for Moore!

As far as politics and art..I think your dead on there. I don't fault Townshend for leasing his mediocre tune to Moore, I fault him for publicizing it (I've yet to read Townshend's claim that Moore said anything about him being for the war).

"One of the greatest artists of the last half century whose work is infused with his fierce opposition to politics, advertising, and every form of propaganda has an unsurprising dispute with Michael Moore, a gifted film-maker/propagandist. "

Well, I guess he doesn't have an opposition to allowing the song in question be used as a theme for a TV show.

Probably a lot more money, eh?

And he has no problem with Hummer commercials, either, does he?

What a sellout.

79, 90 and 136 so I don't have to repeat what is so ugly about your post.

It's okay when artists expect to make money from their craft as long as it falls neatly in line with your political wishes. Amazing.

:thumbsdown:

Don't require me to make your arguments for you.

I didn't express my political wishes. I haven't said anything about his politics at all.

I'm criticising someone's claiming his "work is infused with his fierce opposition to politics, advertising, and every form of propaganda" when Townsend obviously doesn't have a problem with advertising at all.

CSI theme
CSI Miami theme
Hummer H2 commercial (!!!)
several Nissan commercials

I'm criticizing someone's claiming his "work is infused with his fierce opposition to politics, advertising, and every form of propaganda" when Townsend obviously doesn't have a problem with advertising at all.

What you're doing is offering up examples of Who songs used in advertisemtns and drawing the feeble conclusion that said examples automatically make Townshend a "sell-out"(I still cringe to even use the damn term) which I think is pretty weak. In a round about way you're calling me a "sell-out" because I have, and will again, sell my music to the highest bidder. We artists gotta survive somehow. I say if Townshend is a "sell-out" for this practice that automatically makes just about every artist, musical and otherwise, of the past couple hundred years a "sell-out". I'm not prepared to make such sanctimonious indictments. (I would recommend you listen to The Who album "Sell Out" if you haven't already.)

But let's get something clear; I'm not defending Townshend the pedophile. I'm not defending elaborate advertisements for extravagant, gas-guzzling monster-trucks, I'm not even defending Pete as the greatest musician of all time. As a musician/artist struggling to make ends meet myself I am defending his ability to have complete and total control over which evil corporation or political propagandist uses or does not use his music without being labeled a "sell-out" (cringe).

The fact that the row is over MM and Farenheit 9/11 has made this a politcal story. It's certainly the only reason that it's being discussed here. Because if he had chosen not to let Mountain Dew use one of his songs no one here would give a damn. Because he's denied the demagogue behind this damning indictment of ShrubCo, however, he's deemed a "sell-out" here for all his "shady dealings" with Hummer, Inc. and CSI.

The guy may be washed up, he may be deaf, crazy, a pedophile...whatever. But this does not make him a "sell-out", IMHO.

let's look at the two points being made.

One person said that he has a "fierce opposition" to commercialism.
I replied he's a sellout, the opposite of that. Maybe I was going too far, but...

The point is fairly obvious, I would think: someone who's sold his music for as much advertising as Townsend has is clearly closer to the "sell out" end of the continuum than the "fiercely opposed to commercialism" end.

I dunno where you got "shady dealings", though. They're not shady, they've fairly clear. I pulled them all out of memory.

Looks like one to me...:shrug:

It just irks me to see artists called out in this manor. It smacks of a self-righteousness. The practice of automatically labeling an artist a "sell-out" for allowing their medium to be used for commercial purposes is despicable, IMHO.

Even more irksome is the tenor in this thread that because it was MM that Townshend denied use of his tune, his various exploits are lambasted ten-fold.

To use your example, on the linear spectrum driven by the romantic notion that "not selling-out guarantees you maintain your artistic integrity", yes, Mr. Townshend would be closer to the "commercial" end. My question is, why must artists be analyzed in this manor?

Incidentally, the closer an artist gets to the "fiercely opposed to commercialism" the more hungry they are. :(

Did you miss the Hummer ads somehow?

.... were one of the first bands of that genre/generation who sold out their music for yuppie commercials. They certainly weren't the last, but Pete - go to hell you fucking swine.

Or do you simply side with Moore over Townshend before you have heard the facts?

.. I have no respect for artists who espoused a set of values and then promptly toss them in the garbage for a few bucks, when they have already been beyond well-paid for their efforts.

Can you say "hypocrite".

What are the set of values in question that have you so fuming over Mr. Townshend's career?

Why does it upset you so that this man has done whatever he wants with his money and his career? And if he's as irrelevant and unimportant as all the Townshend bashers here say, then why is what he says even the least bit important? Oh! Maybe he's still a little more important than we like; he may get the formerly-drugged-out-sixties-mod demographic to vote Bush.

So the guy CHANGED over time. Methinks we've swallowed the gop-rovian labeling tactic that is currently working for our nominee: "Someone changes their mind, their a drugged out flip-flopper! Throw all their stuff on the fire!"

Can you say "gullible"?

Did they sell out to Jaguar?

How about Dylan? How about the Rolling Stones? Etc.

They all "sold out." But which band told us in the title of one of their albums that they would "sell out"?

I can't even believe that people raise the "sell-out" straw man. I thought that went out with Nirvana.

You don't like the guy for what he says, for his railing against Moore, come out and say it. Don't dance around and bash the mans brilliant career. As a struggling, starving musician I have to say that, barring some awful track record with the environment or human rights, I would sell my music to the highest bidder!!

And I love it when people use Moby as an example of an artist who's artistic and political integrity is in tact. He made ALL his money from selling his music for use in ads. J'accuse!

The Who!!!

:-)

Seriously, "The Who Sell Out" is a TERRIFIC album.

decisions about his own music? The WHo was never anti-commercial.

that's who invited this little schooling session.

Pete has commented many times on this...he does not care what people think of his actions...he'll tell you to fuck off in a heartbeat. Its his art...his music...his livelyhood. This is what he does for a living. Its his fucking job. He needs to make a living like the rest of us. He'll tell you real quick if you love the music buy it...listen to it. If you don't like the music don't waste your money. Townshend has always been very candid about his work and his feelings about it.

Bottom line is Pete would not care one bit that you think he sold out. He owns the music and can do what he wants with it.

A quick note...my kids would never have paid attention to a Who record but hearing the songs on TV has brought the music to them and they ask about it...they like it. Times have changed my friend.

Anybody know what Moore said? I don't see anything in the article, or the Townsend blog entry, in the way of a quote from him.

I think Pete's just trying to get his name out in the press, lest people forget about him (which is likely).

"Pete Townsend, the Who." "Who?"

The Stones, The Who, The Beatles defined a generation but I don't believe this "Townshend is god" shit....

:shrug:

I've not heard or read any Michael Moore comments about Townshend.

But I was immediately reminded of O'Reilly. He is another one who can bluster endlessly over imagined insults.

this is proof that The Who "sucked" :eyes:. Pray tell, what in the hell does this story have to do with the the quality of thier music?

/short rant from this big Who fan

It's pretty clear from his actions over the last 20 years or so.

Oh boy.

1. He was probably right the song's not for F9/11. "Meet the new boss / same as the old boss," isn't necessarily a phrase I would want in people's minds if I were MM and dead set on getting people to vote against Bush.

2. Pete, you'd sell a song to FUCKING HUMMER, an oil-gluttonous vehicle that symbolizes everything fucked up with this war.

So again, yeah, perhaps it's best Pete's music didn't wind up in the film. It would have been even more hypocritcal.

3. Glad to see Clapton didn't have a problem with the "Cocaine" licks :)

J.J. Cale wrote Cocaine...

EC's performance :P

...yeah, some "rock and roll rebels." Moore can't use my song, but every time a HUMMER commercial comes on, I'm gonna make sure they can play one.

Oh, Led Zeppelin, fuck you too for your sellout to Cadillac.

Fuck those damn artists trying to make money!

...gotta be a greedy shitheel now and grab for every last penny you can. That's not being an artist, that's being a whore. You wanna do that fine, but don't paint yourself as some sort of a rebel, and then turn around and give your image away to the likes of Hummer and Cadillac because 300 million in your bank account is not enough.

BTW, one of the greatest artists in history, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, died broke. A real artist that refused to sell out.

What do you care what Townshend does with his music? They were rebels who also had an album called "Sell Out". Did we all miss that little bit of foreshadowing?

Your example of Mozart is most deprived. He didn't die broke because he held out for some artistic ideal, he died broke because he was an idiot-savant and an eccentric maniac.

If you're going to damn Townshend for his various exploits then please include on that ever-so-self-important list of "Artists who deserve condemnation for selling their music" just about every other artist in musical history...oh wiat...except Mozart.

Every pound he gets his hands on is alright, kids.
What a bunch of freeperish fascist nonsense around here.

If he had died with a zillion bucks stuffed in his pockets, would that have changed his music at all--or only your need for him to fulfill some fantasy of yours?

Artists don't need this kind of hyper-romantic nonsense--sensitive readers and listeners, etc., feeding off them like vampires.

somehow, remember that there was no such thing as "the music business" when Mozart was alive.

just because we get around.

I haven't heard a peep.

Well, whatever gets him some press... and what pathetic press at that:
"Uh, I almost got my song in a massively popular movie but uh, it wasn't enough money for me so uh I held out for a commercial instead."

No one knows what it's like to be hated and fated to telling only lies and everything, and hey - his dreams, they aren't as empty as his conscience seems to be. Hello! Does anyone ever really listen to that song? It's a sociopathic anthem.

It's a character-driven song performed by the villain of _Lifehouse_.

The author knows his subject, wouldn't you say?

Artists get to wear masks, assume "personae." The ability to detect a difference hetween the artist and her/his speaker (in the case of, e.g., the Robert Browning who wrote "Porphyria's Lover") is a rudimentary critical skill.

Allowing for the other possibility is another one.

..

First off, Neil Young and That Ten Years After Song (not to mention "Shiny Happy People") Make for a far better soundtrack. Good friggin' riddance, Pete. The beauty of Wont Get Fooled Again comes in Bush's use of the phrase in the last quote in the movie. "Keep On Rockin In The Free World" is better for the credits, because it conveys the seriously f*cked up nature of the situation we're in, IMHO. If you listen to the words of wont get fooled again, the message really is that you can't change anything, because "the new boss" is the "same as the old boss".. Ralph Nader's message in a nutshell. Of course, as I mentioned in my blog the other day, much like Germans love David Hasselhoff, Republicans Dont Listen To Song Lyrics.

Secondly, whatever was cool and fun and original in the Who died with Keith Moon. Just my opinion, again.

is okay for selling Hummers. Man, I hate those 60's sell-outs. That goes for Led Zepplin too!

of "sell-out hating progressive liberals". Yeah those asshole, artists! How dare they try to make a buck from their art form! Especially if they deny the artist behind the predominant political juggernaut!! How dare he have control over where his music ends up!!

"But, he sold his song to a HUMMER commercial!! Burn all the Who records!!"

I'm loving this thread and all the castigation of sell-out musicians. I thought the "sell-out" meme went out after Kurt Cobain died. :shrug:

As I said before, if Townshend is on your elitist self-important list of "Artists Who Deserve Condemnation For Trying to Make Money From Their Art" please include just about every artist in all of musical history.

Good one. :thumbsup:

Townsend wouldn't have been paid if his music had been in F-911? It's not about money.

how do you know that? And if that's the case, what's the fuss about?

Is it because he refused Moore the right to use the music? That would seem to imply that this whole Townshend-bashing thread would be chalked up to him not giving MM what he wanted which, to me, amounts to a pretty weak argument not to mention a waste of time...

I'm pretty sure a union-made film would have paid for the rights to use a Townsend song, so yes, the issue does come down to MM: the whole point of my post being that Townsend will allow his music to be used to sell one of the most environmenally unfriendly cars ever made, but not to raise social awarness.

It's as if Townsend has done a 180, or maybe, I dunno, how can I put it... "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

You just spelled out for me your reasons for your (and almost everyone else's in this thread) castigation of Townshend for his decision to sell his song for use in a Hummer ad and his refusal of his song to MM, the reasons for which, I would remind you, remain a mystery. Thanks for that but I think I understand your point.

What I am saying is that said castigation smacks of a kind of self-righteous, selective scorn heaped upon any artist that does not fall in line with whatever political end you support.

The point here is NOT MM; the point here is that Townshend has the right to do whatever the f*ck he wants with his music and because he chooses not to let MM use it does not make him a "sell-out". A washed up, crazy old coot? Possibly, yes. But a brilliant musician nonetheless, whose decision here I will not let color my overall impression of him and his imprint on the music world.

On a final note, from what position has Townshend come "180" from, pray tell? Was he ever some anti-capitalist crusader out to rid the world of gas-guzzling cars and fascist regimes?? :shrug:

Okay, I see your point too.

The music of the 60's was popularized by the counter-culture of the time. Whether the musicians of the time held the same points of view, I cannot say (although some clearly did). Maybe Zepplin and the Who were all about fame and fortune from the get go and simply rode a movement to their success.

Townshend was writing commercials in the sixties at exactly the same time he was writing his classic songs.

He was just as commercial as, say, the Beatles were with their fan-club-only releases.

Americans hate the idea that pop music (the prefered British term I think) is also supposed to be successful and the musicians well-remunerated.

But that's a romantic notion--the flip side of Gingrichian sixties-diabolism is sixties idealization. The era was real and we must judge it realistically.

not worth it

I still love their early "mod" hits.

Give em a break damn.


My first concert in 1974 was the WHO. (I ain't giving away, my age. I was 8. Hahahahaha.)

He has every right to refuse to use his music in anything he wants.

Get off him!

Much greater emotional impact, and a far less tired song than "Won't Get Fooled Again."

What is Townsend's problem??? And what's his fricking point? I suppose now he owns the concept "Won't get fooled again". And of course needs a cut????????

The egos that stand in the way of this world being a decent one, I tell ya.

He did a pretty good 180 on his Bushwarrior routine, but still looked like a jerk for backing that stupid made up story with a song. Archetypical rock and roll propaganda.

He is my favorite 60's artist still working.

Pete's right, that would have weakened Moore's propaganda element :)

Why don't you work for the Wall Street Journal some more. YOU SELL OUT CLOSET CASE.... gee The Who should be called The Who(res) and Wankers

Uh, until I read this thread I had no idea there was anything between Moore and Townshend. So I think either Pete's a little paranoid or has gone a little too far to the right in his old age. I have great respect for him as a musician but this seems a little wierd to me, if he was so horribly bullied and slandered by Moore why is this the first I've heard of it? It's not like I don't follow music or politics, or Moore for that matter..
As far as the music is concerned, it's nice to see there's people who love and hate everything. Anything so strongly loved and hated at the same time trancends it's regular form of entertainment to become art. We need more art to fight over, because fighting over oil, god, and land hasn't really gotten us very far.
And finally for my humble opinion, the man who rules them all is Roger Waters. Songwriter/Singer/Bassist for Pink Floyd. The one classic rock artist who actually wrote songs protesting the original Gulf War. He's got an album coming out Dec/Jan and you can bet your ass there will be some scathing anti-Bush anti-war tunes on that one. Moore should have called him...

Its funny that Jeez made it into my subject as well... I agree about Roger Waters, Amused to Death is an amazing and frighteningly timely album looking forward to his new one.
Scott

Great minds I guess :D

that bastard, havent I waited long enough?
I think the average American internet troll has no clue the perspective a British rock star might have. They have a heritage that involves real bombings during war and a society that is quite a bit different, not to mention the things someone in his position has seen there and here. People who are passing judgement on his statements or labeling him a pedophiile really need to have themselves judged.

Am I allowed to still like both Michael Moore and The Who? This thread has definitely taken on a life of its own but I don't see what the big deal is. I never viewed Townshend as some kind of beacon of leftist politics anyway, I viewed him as the creative force behind one of my favorite rock bands of all time (although I would argue that band died with Keith Moon unfortunately). Lets not get too worked up about this people, to each his own I say.
Scott
PS Saying Exile on Main St is overrated is just so wrong on so many levels its killing me, same goes for Pet Sounds :)

If the press were full of Moore's comments, I'd see why Mr. Townshend feels the need to defend himself. As it is, it looks like he's just out for publicity.

Oh well. The Who really were very good in their day.

who hit Abbie Hoffman over the head with a guitar at Woodstock?

Like Ray Bradbury, some will pin their name on the story of the hour just to get their flagging memory a boost.

He needs to go back to obscurity and his 'research'.

:puke:

He certainly is not obsure, and he is not what so many are judging him to be. If you are going to judge him, give him a fair trial.

He has been very discrete about it, 'cause this is the first I have heard of it.

FWIW, I liked lots of the Who's stuff.

Isn't this 194 threaded topic just the kind of divisive and irrelevant debate the Republicans hope we will become preoccupied with while they destroy the U.S.A.

Towshend has always been a self-absorbed, self-made controversialists, and one of my favorite guitarists. But anyone WHO knows his story, knows he's made a career out of saying and doing outlandish things. Give it up already!