The Who's Pete Townshend has posted a comment on his website about the use of his song "Won't Get Fooled Again" in the film Fahrenheit 9/11. Pete provides some background on why he declined to let his music be used in the Moore's film. Pete writes:
- "I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that "Won't Get Fooled Again" 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."
One can only imagine how things would be if Townshend's Who song "Won't Get Fooled Again" had been used in Moore's film instead of Neil Young's "Rockin' In The Free World".
As reported earlier, Michael Moore and Neil Young have reached agreement for Moore to direct a music video for the song's re-release.
Article comments
1 - Tom Johnson
I wonder if Moore was attempting to use this because of the Who's triumphant performance of WGFA at the Concert for NY shortly after the 9/11 attacks?
2 - Mark Saleski
i heard moore wanted to use "What's So Funny 'bout Peace, Love & Understanding"...but he heard the roar 'o barger all the way from down on the farm...it got him all ascared, so he backed off.
3 - Eric Rife
Let me see if I've got this straight ...
According to Pete Townshend's website,
his publisher "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."
Townshend, a self-described supporter of Bush's wars, says his reluctance to let Moore use the song stems in part from his reservations about the accuracy of "Bowling For Columbine" calling it a "bullying film." Unfortunately, Townshend does not provide specific examples of what he's talking about, a very common tactic used to discredit people like Michael Moore.
I have no problem with Pete Townshend picking and choosing who he sells his songs too. Although I was a little surprised to see "Happy Jack" being used to sell Hummer SUVs.
What I do find offensive is the closing line in his blog entry ..."(Moore) will 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."
I love the Who, but I find Townshend's notion that musicians are somehow better qualified than are filmmakers to "change the world" to be more than a tad obnoxious and pretentious.
4 - Brett
Well, Eric, I don't think Townshend needed to provide examples of why he thought "Columbine" was a "bullying" film; no one asked him for any.
Yes, Pete is arrogant to think that he's better qualified to change the world as a musician than Moore is as a filmmaker. Though I'm willing to bet that more people will remember the music of the Who than they will Moore's directorial efforts as time passes. However, you should be willing to admit that Moore is just as arrogant to put his films out as some kind of "truth" when he so willingly and willfully leaves out the details that conflict with or contradict the impression he wants to leave with the viewer. He's like an attorney; he presents the facts most beneficial to his theory, and ignores or downplays those facts that undermine, contradict, or disprove his theory. Of course, there's no ethical guideline or law hamstringing Moore to lie or suborn perjury....
5 - Todd
Moore is a fat butthead and Townshend is a proven musical genius.
6 - Tom Johnson
Unfortunately, Townshend does not provide specific examples of what he's talking about, a very common tactic used to discredit people like Michael Moore.
It's not needed - it's a known fact. Just do a little research on the internet and you'll find plenty of examples of the problems with truth Moore had in Columbine.
What I do find offensive is the closing line in his blog entry ..."(Moore) will 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."
It's called humor - he's saying that Moore has as much chance of changing the world with his film as Townsend himself has of changing the world with a guitar.
7 - Christine
I don't believe that Townshend's final quote was humor. He was being perfectlu serious, because a man with a guitar can change the world. In Townshend's case, he was able to get songs concerning divorce, transvetitism, and masturbation to be played on the radio, opening up the horizons for other artists. Townshend has changed the world. Anyone of any age at any time period could listen to My Generation and feel like it was written for them. The same goes for the album Quadrophenia, except the mod references. How is that versatility not able to change the world even just a little bit?
8 - Eric Rife
Well, Brett (and Tom), I don't think it is "arrogant" of Michael Moore to offer his opinions, which are carefully researched and documented. You may not agree with his conclusions, but that doesn't mean he's not producing a good piece of work. As far as Tom's claim "it's a known fact" (that Moore is being dishonest) based on information on the Internet, well, please. I can do "a little research on the Internet" as you suggest and find evidence of alien abductions and flying elephants.
Besides, Moore never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, although I would still like to hear SPECIFIC examples of what you and Pete are alluding to. Further, since when is an artist or a filmmaker obligated to present evidence contrary to their own conclusions? Townshend makes a statement, but presents NO evidence to substantiate what he's talking about. Maybe it's just me, but when someone makes such a sweeping generalization, I'm curious to know exactly what they mean.
In the case of "Bowling for Columbine" Moore gives the president of the NRA the opportunity to answer for himself. What more do you want? The man is the leader of one of the strongest, wealthiest and most influential lobbying groups in the U.S. If he can go from city to city extolling the rights of people to own assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets, then I think it's safe to assume he's capable of handling an interview with Michael Moore. Just because Moore got the best of Charlton Heston doesn't make him a "bully."
I don't mean this as a cheap shot, but as a long time Who fan who always respected Townshend's intellect, I have to say that I lost a lot of respect for the man when he gave his credit card number to a child porn site. I'll assume he's being honest when he says it was for "research" but how stupid do you have to be to go out on a limb like that? D'oh!
Here's a (respectful) tip for Pete Townshend and Tom Johnson ... instead of relying on the Internet for your information, try doing some of your research at a library or university. You're less likely to get in trouble that way.
"Rock stars ... is there anything they DON'T know?" - Homer Simpson
9 - TJC
How I see Pete Townshend is as a brilliant musician, amongst other things.
I also see him as a person that is muddled up when it comes to integrity.
Everything that happened to him, the bad stuff, not too long ago, was, in my opinion a result of bad karma (help hippy jargon!), I'll explain.
A fair dosis of cynicism may be healthy.
What if the cynicism is inaccurate, based on part truth and then the creation of fantasy, where certain people are made out to be, something that they are not?
How awful for Pete, I believe him, but, I know some more, I knew Ernie, their character, was real, but, not as Pete invented him and portrayed him.
Pete whilst making Tommy, had fun creating that were at the cost of someone who was nothing of what Pete put forward, now, Pete never ever spoke about how he really created, it's his right, I agree, but, it is not his right to make a song, using a real name, of a real person, whilst that said same person, is even in the same building and undeserving of what they wrote. Being not that which they portrayed.
Pete probably does not even remember, but I do, I remember Ernie coming into the building's caretaker office and being very upset. I asked him, 'What's up?'
He said, 'They're all taking drugs'.
I asked, "Who is"
(and I knew not a thing about drugs, anyhow, I was 11).
He said, 'All of them',
I asked, "what, the Who too?"
He said, 'No, that Blackmore and Deep Purple'
(Deep purple were in the same building working at the same time as The Who in 1969, possible 68 too)
Then Ernie said,
'I'm not having it,
they're writing songs about me now'.
I said, "wow, Ernie, who is?"
He said, That ----- Townshend is.
I said, "What's wrong then?" ( I thought wow what an honour)
He told me that I was too young to understand.
And I never did, until, I remembered all of it, and was able to comprehend what they put Ernie through, Ernie was not a pedo, and so, I can only conclude, that if you go throwing stones in glass houses, all of the windows are likely to come crashing down on you. I never heard the music from Tommy (except what I heard them doing in the gym, whilst creating Tommy)until many years after all of this stuff, it was only then that I realised what had happened and what Ernie had meant and that Tommy and some of those songs were directly drawn from real people but then warped to fit Pete's creation, but I wonder about his fairness.
Tommy and his fantasy holiday camp was about Tommy going to one of these real holiday camps, in Britain, Butlins to be precise, there Tommy went for his first holiday with his east block holiday loving dad and new wife that he'd met at a communist party dance, (polkadot? polonaise?) there he hated it, seeing as dad just went on his merry way and gave the kids no money, therefore, the kids were on holiday alone, because the grown ups did their thing and the kids had to think themselves lucky that they even went on holiday.
Everyday, boring and locked in what looked like a concentration camp, no money for an ice cream whilst dad drank and danced the night away as happy as a pig in muck.
An only child that although wanted to change the world, did not know how to share, because, those generations had not yet enough freedom to break through anything false, like the bible inspired, *The man is the head of the house*, though atheistic, still a communist is held in sway and thought by the conventions and so-called normalities of the present day, even if the roots be in religion.
Tommy awoke, he was a small year old, he lay in his cot, and was afraid to be alone in darkness, but it was in the daytime, so it wasnt' at first as bad as at night to lie far from his mom, who he saw as the connection to his whole existence, all he knew was that she was the thing that held something about his essense, he thought that he might possibly get back to the perfect peace of the unborn, but, as we are born, we are hit with multiple images, and we are hit by our physicality, we feel helpless unable to hardly convey a thing, whilst all of the time we have our intelligence and feelings, far more than modern man can understand.
Tommy lay there but nobody came, usually after some time someone came, but now he lay in dirty diapers for maybe two hours, and his own waste burnt his soft baby skin, until he was sore and terrified to be totally alone, so, he struggled, managing to climb out of his cot, falling in the process and hurting himself and feeling totally unloved.
He got up crying from many things, fear of being alone, pain from falling, he entered the living room and there he also found an empty house, he was terrified and unable to work out how to help himself more, he had just learnt to walk, recently, then, suddenly the door flew open and he was very momentarily relieved to see his mom stood there but immediately he was scared to death of his mom because she proceeded to scream at him, as if to a grown adult who had done something very wrong.
You little (swear words)
I'll kill you if you tell your father.
Tommy (not real name) did not understand his mom and the one who was "his all" was angry at him, for nothing that he could understand, he did not know what he'd done.
He didn't know what not to tell his dad. He was completely uncomfortable unattended to and unloved, disgusted at himself with his dirty diaper afraid it was because he needed changing that his mom was angry, he had no idea, what was happening or why. Something was breaking and it was his small new heart.
Then he saw a man on the end of the bed and his mom was fastening her bra but to a one year old, a man and bras have no meaning, because a one year old has nothing in sexual things.
The whole day his mom looked glaringly at him so that Tommy instead of playing daren't hardly say a word, for fear of his mom, who he loved.
Dad arrived home, and took Tommy on his knee, asking him how he'd been that day, which was a new and unusual thing or action to be having with Tommy, then his dad began to probe.
Why are you sad Tommy?
Mommy was angry at me.
Why Tommy?
I don't know.
You don't know?
I don't know,
Why was mommy angry Tommy?
I had a dirty diaper and then mommy said she'd kill me.
Kill you, why would mommy want to do that Tommy?
I can't say daddy.
Why not? (mama growling at the other edge of the table directly at Tommy, warningly, Tommmmy!!!, I'll kill you)
Shutup you, I want to hear from Tommy, said dad to mom.
Tell me Tommy, what did mommy say?
Mommy said not to tell you about that man or she'd kill me.
Man?
What man Tommy?
The man sitting on the bed.
Which bed?
Mommy's bed.
Right. (angrily and very serious and stern)
What was his name Tommy?
Uncle Tom
Uncle Tom, you haven't got an uncle Tom Tommy, he died, what was his name Tommy?
Mommy will kill me.
Tell me.
Paul.
Paul?
Right, go to your room Tommy
No please, (crying).
Go to your room, NOW!
Tommy tried to stay but his dad was adamant, go to your room now.
Finally, Tommy was forced to go away from anything where he felt safe and to his room, alone, unhappy, unloved (he felt) afraid, and his small mind in absolute breakage, unable to understand a single thing of what was happening to him, or why, and he cried and sobbed quietly, alone, for hours, feeling rejected, terrified now of both parents, cowering afraid to move or make a noise even though he shuddered in deep bellows from his tears at feeling he was the worst person ever and that he must be really bad because both his mom and dad were angry at him and the amount of hate he felt on his wee shoulders was more than he could bare.
All he wanted was to have some love.
Traumatised perhaps for the rest of his life, and not later being able to remember where his fears and anxieties rooted themselves, where they came from, where they could be located and thrown out and healed.'
Lost in the world Tommy became.
He found out many years later that his brother Paul was not a child of his own dad but actually the child of that occassion, and he realised his dad had brought Paul up as his own, even after divorce, which showed that his dad meant well, but also got a whole lot wrong.
The true story of Tommy was far worse than Pete's lightweight pickup out of the air portrayal, but he did well, because his was fantasy, his nose detecting abuse, but Tommy's real story, you could hardly invent it for a book, exactly how emotional torture can be in real life. Physical torture is bad, as in rape, violence, but mental and emotional and spirit-crushing abuse is easily as bad if not even worse, because your spirit is you.
I wish Pete would be that little bit more honest because well, he's damaging himself by not doing as he would be done by, I'd like it if he ever heard what I'm saying, that he apologised for being a mean and cockey know it all whilst defaming the character and man Ernie, back then, when he did.
Because falsely accusing another brings more of the same back.
Whether a person is a peasant, a preacher, a priest, a servant, a soldier, a president or a rock star, when you put yourself above God in thinking you can treat a person like dirt then be okay, you'll find out that the truth has a hard way of hitting home because it doesn't deal in weak alibis, it appears where it can do its work, and comes in the least expected way.
You wouldn't wish that which happened to Pete to happen to anyone, if that person is innocent and actually a fighter against human rights abuses, and who could ever understand how a person who does definitely have good integrity, as Pete does, how he then throws his own pearls at swine by lowering himself, with pointing the finger, inaccurately at another, so I speak up for Ernie, who, treated me as his own child, the truth, is, it was okay to leave the boy with uncle Ernie, and he was not my uncle.
Keith Moon, in the film, as the pervert uncle Ernie, sat behind a small window, as something like a doorman, or a ticket seller, in the film there, he has these gloves with the bits for fingers and thumbs half cut off, he taps his fingers back and forth, it's comical, but, it was the real Ernie, Ernie the boxer, his mannerism, Ernie always did that and that is where Keith got it from, the boxing trainer, ex army person, that they used to earn money on, using someone to make a song, okay, but defamation of character, is that okay?Ernie was angry atmy dad for giving me no attention, my dad a man engrossed in trying to change the world, through communism, in Britain, trying to better the rights of the working people, and totally fanatic with it.
Each person feels a calling, to be doing what they do, and feeling that it is more important than anything anyone else does.
Pete says in an interview, 'I earnt a lot of money off of that little sap'.
That doesn't sound then like Tommy was a creation, a make believe person, but a real person, too, just like Ernie, because, if one uses such strong terms, *little sap*, then, it seems he didn't think much of this Tommy, fictional or real, yet, I think/feel, if he wasn't real, then why the animosity? Why not just, 'I made a lot of money off of Tommy'?
I'll tell you about Tommy.
The real Tommy was not raped by any uncle he was mentally and emotionally abused and neglected by his parents.
That trauma led him to be inverted and afraid of the outside world, so that he lived in his own world.
The real Tommy was born full of love,
told his dad at the age of three, that his Father (Tommy's Father) did not want it for him, (for Tommy's dad) that he have anything to do with killing. Because this Father wanted love for all of us.
Tommy's dad could not understand how Tommy could be calling another person his Father, because Tommy's dad thought that he was Tommy's Father.
When Tommy told his dad that this was his Father in that other world, where Tommy came from, his dad thought that his son might be not quite right in the head, then, anyone reading this or being told by a child that his Father is the Father of love, would think likewise.
Tommy's mom and dad had, like most people, carnal troubles going on, which drew them, into actions that hurt themselves and everyone, but this is the world where mankind is not intelligent enough to use all of our technology to heal the world but to continue instead to breed greedy people
who live their entire lives running after things that can't last and where any truth of any prophet has been twisted to suit the lack of comprehension of the importance of breeding kindness round this planet, used to commit murder, on and on, every war, every killing, is murder.
I don't understand where Pete is, if it's true that he stood behind war in Iraq.
Take a circle, divide it into twelve segments, then take six pieces of the whole away, to show the same circle in its completeness, exactly how it was, won't be easy or possible, and this is our world today where we refuse to let by-gones be by-gones and admit to our own mis-doings and to take all of our dealings and doings into account, we only see bits, but before making the mistake of making rules for the world with aggression as the key factor, which are not grounded in truth but in the truth of self promotiion and ego, the western world must hold itself as accountable for the failings in our world now where criminality is soaring, drug and alcohol abuse are soaring, where millions of homeless traverse the globe trying to survive, many not believing in much anymore, in this world too where the breeding grounds for fanatic fundamental religionists are ripe, we need to admit to our failures, all of our falures, to make this world work, to admit that by looking at our own history, we are hardly, as developed nations entitled to moralise to others with cultures and roots going back to our earliest civilizations, especially when we are guilty of many many years of human mishandlings in our disregard for the environment we think we own the Earth.
A few hundred years is as yesterday in the span of time, colonialism and slavery happened just yesterday.
We refuse to remove the dirt first from our own eyes so that we could see to help remove the dirt in anyone elses eyes far more easily.
We struggle blindly, poking other people, in our blindness.
Iraq could have been solvedin a different way. By the west stopping with its prefertial treatment to countries that bring us the western world wealth and in this, if it does, any country bringing us wealth, then our governments kept their mouths shut, turn a blind eye, have dealings with countries that chop off limbs and tortures but then shout about other countries for weak reasons, when it reeks of hypocrisy.
The peoples in the downtrodden countries, poor countries, or at least undeveloped countries, are held down by us throwing fuel onto the fires of anger and mistrust that those in under-nourished countries feel towards the west, seeing themselves the amount their dictator driven country's peoples have to bare, they are disillusioned, and angry, instead of them too believing in the virtues of freedom of speech and rights to vote and our western models for civilization they have begun, to see us as the devils workers, and you can't shout that down, you must see to it that you convince them of our sincerity in wanting to share fairly and assist and help grow in positive ways with freedom to choose and to follow and practice your religion as long as you do not exert violence on others and force your will on others, let alone your form of belief.
When we are shown to be liars, our appointed leaders and our double dealing businessmen shown to be outright crooks as in Exon, etcetera, then how will the world ever heal and start a different cycle up? Can we even convince ourselves we know what we're doing?
I don't think in general that a majority of muslims hated everything western, but they have been so humiliated by their own leaders so long and humiliated by us that what else can they do but use their idea of religion as a tool to hate us. With a true will towards goodness to these folk, from us, they themselves, the citizens of countries would find a way to overthrow any dictator because they themselves would not have been able to blame us for everything, if we were absolutely true to them, but we have held poor countries down, because our own business interests went above any moral.
The countries surrounding Iraq could have brought Saddam Hussein's downfall.
But those surrounding countries just do not believe in us, they do not feel as if the western world tries to understand them or their cultures and we are not trusted, they feel disrespected.
Now look at the mess.
Now we are on a road to destruction, through impatience and lies.
Worldwide, how will we all live when we are afraid to go to a store for fear of being blown up, or going to a concert, or famous place, an airport, fear when our kids gooff to an olympic event, how will we break the chain of destruction? With more destruction and division?
How will children grow, living in fear and race hating race?
A man can indeed live an entire lifetime trying to do good whilst his way is entirely deficient and wrong, in truth.
Now, we continue with the tough guy stance, what does mankind need to shut up, an invasion by aliens from outter space? That'd be minimally necessary, to make us realise that earthlings shouldn't be destroying earthlings.
Not destroying? Everything okay?
When is the surprise and next huge disaster going to be?
Will it help to say, We'll get 'em, in their caves, we'll smoke them out, when the tone engaged in and the level of intellect shown, inspires others to
aggression instead of willingness towards appeasement and
mutual understanding and respect.
No country would survive how it does without interaction with other countries, no one country is better than another, each is different and unique, the amount of productivity possible in this world, in a unified world, will always outweigh any achievement done with our world built on divisions.
Just as most people's love is self fulfilling and nothing to do with real love.
In all, relationships, seem to be, exercises in working out own pains, insecurities, it is used, relationships are, to make us feel safe and we try to find love, but the love we try to find we lack in ourselves, therefore relationships are a clingy, mad, sad, life wrecking affair, because people cannot face up to themselves.
I find it equally meaningless that he is a difficult person as to the story Moore yet if he is so correct, why cheapen your songs by giving them to someone trying to sell something or other, if those songs are just a product that can be had for money, why wouldn't he be able to do the same, acquire them, for a price?
Morals, ethics?
I think Pete is not only a great musician but also a clever, shrewd businessman. Mixed up one, as John Entwistle said, The most mixed up person he ever met.
Another said, The most cynical person he ever met.
A mixed up cynical, businessman musician.
But art comes too from great personal suffering. And I can see it on him how he's suffered. Good luck to him. Each one of us makes mistakes but Pete you see, does genuinely detest the things that got him near to the verge of ruin, it turned on him, he was cruel, he is forgiven, indirectly from Ernie by me. (Ernie is most likely dead) Pete has payed for being mean but he doesn't even know it.
Doesn't know how or why.
I do genuinely feel sorry for him, because he meant well, but young people can have enormous egos.
I don't think he would be so inconsiderate now.
Ernie wanted to punch his lights out, truly, I'm dead serious, Ernie was a heavyweight boxer, trained heavyweights too there at the same location, there still is a boxing club there, they didn't like Ernie obviously, The Who didn't, they were young, they were hip, Ernie was a normal citizen, not hip, a simple man but a good man. And they had to deal with him in hiring the gym from the centre, it was Ernie who told me to go sit and watch them if I wanted to, I did, two weeks long, about a few feet away from Keith. Keith was fantastic to watch, he was the only one who spoke to me, and gave me a broken stick.
10 - Mark
somebdy take TJC's pipe away
11 - S. Johnson
It should be obvious to any learned person that Michael Moore is a proficient propagandist. He has had much time to develop these techniques stemming all the way back to his association with Mother Jones magazine which was highly subversive propaganda most of which decried success through commerce. The fact that Townshend chooses not to deal with Moore brings me great relief.
Townshend is very religious. And while I don't know it for sure, I would think he would be opposed to anyone using his songs to promote a vision of anti-religion. Moore does this with a vengence. One example is his calling the vast majority of the United States Jesusland in an attempt to discredit the faithful among us.
Moore is also very self serving, ala Jesse Jackson. The guy is worth tens of millions paid to him by ignorant people who don't care to research the facts. He is a shakedown artist whose only talent is the ability to produce wonderfully rich propaganda. What better way to bolster his lies than with songs written by other washed up subversives like Young who made their riches bashing "the establishment" while the rest of us worked and produced in the environment of the establishment to build our lives and raise our families.
Applause for Townshend and his support for God in a world that is slowly being eaten by terrorists who claim to be religious in the same way that Moore claims to be a journalist.
12 - KJRogers
I will agree with Shane (and Pete) on this one.
Pete has no obligation to lend his material (which is not meant to be factualy correct....it's music and lyrics) to any/every individual that would like to use it's power to sell their own theories. Moore knows there is big money in chaos. If you have bought into Moore's propaganda, then maybe you should play WGFA and re-think what it means to you.
As far as a man with a guitar vs a man with a camera. WGFA (and many other Who songs) continue to hold signifigance for millions 35 years after it was written. I wonder what signifigance we will place on Moore's work (any of it) 35 years from now. There is no question that music has changed the world in a way filmakers could never.
Eric, don't let your need to defend Moore cloud your clear understanding of the imprortance of Pete Townshend's work. You just have to realize that most people don't agree with you on this one because you are wrong, and Moore is just using devisive tactics to separate fools like you from their money.
Also, Townshend IS arrogant. That's one of the many reasons I like him. Who wants a watered down, filtered Pete Townshend?
TJC....You need to get some help buddy!
Shane, I still like Neil Young's music. I promise not to let his drug clouded Canadian political views influence me. Just like Eric, he has the right to be wrong.
13 - S Johnson
You're right, Ken, Neil Young does have the right to be wrong. He also has a right to be crappy.
Perhaps that's why he is selling his soul to Moore. He has to make up all that money he lost producing that crappy Greendale album, movie, video and concert tour!
14 - thrasher
SJohnson,
Oh come on now. The right to be crappy?! Have you checked out Neil's just released Greatest Hits album?
See http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/17/223627.php
for the track list. Just the first 11 songs are far more than 98% of today's artists have produced in their entire career.
And Greendale? I think you really missed it's significance. Try this for some thoughts - pro & con.
http://www.thrasherswheat.org/2003/greendale_comment.htm
15 - Eric Rife
Just a few quick notes ...
First, I don't feel the need to defend Moore's work ... I trust people to make up their own minds about it (providing they actually watch it before commenting on it).
But that wasn't the point of my earlier posts.
Second, yes, the Who's songs and their (personal) impact on people will likely last FAR beyond a documentary about current events. Duh.
Again, that wasn't the point of my earlier posts.
I don't have a problem with Townshend's right to sell or not sell his work to whomever he pleases.
Again, that wasn't the point of my earlier posts.
What I DO have a problem with is people making sweeping generalizations without backing up what they say. Townshend and his defenders at this site make several, very general comments about Moore's work WITHOUT PROVIDING SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. I know this might come as a surprise to some of you but calling someone "wrong," "a propagandist," or "subversive" without providing any details is just plain stupid. It's not even an argument.
To KJ Rogers: I understand perfectly well (probably even better than you, I'd wager) the importance of Townshend's work. But that's not the issue. I would respectfully submit that YOU should not let your defense of Townshend cloud your feelings toward Moore. Again, not a single one of the people who have responded to my posts address SPECIFICALLY a single allegation made by Michael Moore (who, it should be pointed out, is hardly alone in his sentiment) that they disagree with.
To S. Johnson: As far as Townshend being "very religious" ... who cares? Osama bin Laden and Jerry Falwell are very religious but so what? I must have missed that part in the Bible where Jesus bombs the unbelievers ....
And please don't talk to me about "terrorists" - the United States, under Reagan and Bush, financially and militarily SUPPORTED the Mujahdeen and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s! Let's not even go into the multitude of neo-fascist dictatorships our government has supported over the years in Chile, Iran, the Philippines, El Salvador ....
For Christ's sake (literally Mr. Johnson!) do a little research on Townshend's religion. I doubt you'd have that much respect for Townshend's "God" who was another in a long line of typical 60s gurus named Meher Baba. Baba, like every other dime store religious charlatan preached love and peace through acceptance of HIM as God.
That a person like Townshend would buy into this crap, is, to my way of thinking, absurd. But then again, he IS the guy who gave his credit card number to a child porn site so I guess he doesn't exactly qualify as a genius.
16 - Lisa
I am with Tod. Butt head vs genius...grouchy genius at times but genius
17 - talentint
Pete Townshend Live!!! Rachel Fuller presents "In the Attic" with Willy Mason, Rosehill Drive, and very special guest PETE TOWNSHEND!!! Show at the House of Blues Chicago this Thursday, September 28, 2006...329 N. Dearbourn, Chicago, IL