Dr. Frank's What's-it

It's not surprising that his reponse was "Once I had an idea of what the film was about," he adds, "I was 90% certain my song was not right for them." I only live about 15 minutes away from Pete and this is a dominantly
conservative/Republican city.

I'm a little confused about Townsend's statement comparing his and MM's ability to change the world. Because it seems that Townsend himself is describing WGFA as a pretty cynical song: "They're all the same, they all lie to us, I'm not bothering to invest my hopes in politicians/revolutionaries any more." I disagree with this view, but Pete can think for himself. Still, unless the "change the world" comment is completely sarcastc (i.e., "neither a man with a camera nor a man with a guitar can change the world at all, Mike"), I don't get it.

Like you, Frank, my curiosity is peaked by that Lighthouse project. PT's reference is all I've heard about it, though I'm not a dedicated Who fan or anything so it's not like I've researched it. I'm curious because it sounds like it has a similar point to the Kinks' Preservation show/albums, which centers on how truth is "twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike." Anyone out there enough of a nut to both know the 2 Preservation albums and something more about this Lighthouse thing?

Nick, as I read the camera/guitar statement, it's an expression of skepticism about the possibility of redemption through mass culture. I could be wrong, though.

"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."

Methinks Tre's "democracy is gay" was about as insightful an observation as anything Pete says here. We want our presidents to solve our national problems -- but, hey, not if they appear arrogant doing it!

Well, JB, I don't know if it rises to the level of "insightful," but I don't think arrogance enters into it. The irony is that Michael Moore cultivates the pretense that he is "speaking truth to power," when in fact he is power. It seems to me there's something in that.

But Pete doesn't think MM is power, since there's no redemption through mass culture, right? MM has influence, but not the kind of power that a president has.

Are there any other sources for Moore's "public slagging" of Townshend other than the "Film Comment" article? Specifically interviews in which Moore "bullies and slurs" him?

It's interesting that Moore and Townshend never seem to have communicated directly with each other about this issue. This could certainly be a contributing factor to the fracas -- like a grown-up (or perhaps not so grown-up) game of telephone.

perhaps they could collaborate on a movie about barbara bush's dog? entitled :"Pictures of Millie"?

ba dump ching groan yeah sorry.

mike, that's both painful and funny. ouch.

"It appears that Michael Moore has been publicly slagging Pete Townshend for refusing to grant permission for the use of "Won't Get Fooled Again" in Farenheit 911."

Um, ya think?

http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/07/pete-knows-nuance-makes-for-better-art.html

"The irony is that Michael Moore cultivates the pretense that he is 'speaking truth to power," when in fact he is power.'"

For all that I've spoken up so many times against Moore as a demagogue of the left (and Coulter and Limbaugh and others as demagogues of the right), and the last thing I said about him was here:
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/07/tell-it-ellen.html
(is there some reason you don't enable linking, Dr. Frank?; it makes doing so extremely obtrusive), I don't think Moore particularly is "power" in the way that, say President Bush, or Speaker Hastert, and any of thousands of his opponents are. His power is, indeed, much closer to Pete Townsend's.

Well, boys, if I ever were under the misapprehension that Michael Moore's power is greater than or equal to that of the President of the United States, you certainly have set me right.

Maybe this is too easy, but anyone who has the power to convince the police (albeit UK bobbies) that his documented purchases of online child porn were solely for research seems pretty powerful to me.

Yeah, Mr. B, whatever became of that? Wonder if it'll become one of those celebrity scandals that only I remember, like the Eddie Murphy tansvestite ho scandal (he had a pretty lame excuse, too, but no one ever mentions it, even though no one ever lets Hugh Grant forget his ho and she wan't even a transvestite, AND he didn't bother with a lame excuse).

I used to absolutely idolize Townshend as a teenager. Recent events have soured my memories but the feud with Moore has rehabilitated him to a small extent.

Still, though- is anyone buying that research jazz?

"It's pretty rare, as far as I've observed, for a songwriter to be able to discuss his own songs with such clarity."

Some people look you in the eye and say exactly what they mean. Sometimes I am afraid to look back at them, afraid there's nothing there in their dreams.

If you happen to hear the singer, by the time her words are sung, did she paint you a chrystal clear picture or a dream between heart and tongue?

-the anomoanon

You guys are so cynical! Eddie Murphy was just giving the transvestite a ride! Come on! Eddie Murphy would probably give you a ride if you needed one! And Pete Townshend was doing research. I mean, how many of us haven't given a transvestite a ride back to our homes and purchased child pornography for the purposes of research. Come on people. But that pervert Hugh Grant...

Let me lower the intellectual level here. WGFA is simply one of the greatest rock songs of all time. I have good memories of that song in various locales in my youth. I'm so glad it has not gotten mixed up with Moore.

I like Michael Moore and the Who. Is that okay?

No Chris, Michael Moore is a girlie-man and should not be making movies any longer. He has not had one thing redeeming since "Canadian Bacon".

This is on-topic, as you mentioned your "other writing I've been working on," so...how's about a taste? Can we get an "8 Little Pages" PDF sampler?

this is kind of an old topic butsince since you all brought it up (even though it has no bearing here) i'll chime in: i for one believe the "research" excuse. pete townshend is a very intense indulgent sometimes overzealous guy, and when he starts on something he doesn't quit till he has had a nervous breakdown or close to it. he just doesn't seem like in my heart of hearts a pedophile to me. i've been a who fan almost 20 years and i know pete just got carried away. he is a man i belive genuinely has concern, nothing more, for childrens' well being. his honesty and earnestness in his work proves that to me.

There's another piece on this issue over on American Prospect:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8175

There is a rather informative essay on Lifehouse here: http://thewho.net/articles/townshen/life.htm... I wrote a term paper on Lifehouse and Tommy in college myself, but it's lost in the detritus of my adolescence.

Well, I like Michael Moore (though I am quite sure he is just as much an asshole as many say), and I like Pete Townshend (ditto). It's always interesting to see two strong and willful personalities go up against each other.

WGFA has some great lines that make sense in the context of the film (F911), so we're left with the age-old debate about whether the artist or the audience is the authoritative voice on the interpretation of the work. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," and "I know that the hypnotised never lie" are very appropriate and dare I say topical. That Townshend's context for the lyrics, back in 1970, was different, should be obvious. It doesn't mean that rock music (or any music, for that matter) can't be reinterpreted by new generations and applied to new situations. Perhaps the saddest thing is that we have to go back 35 years to get that sort of definitive statement from a "popular" rock song.