MovieChat Forums > Amazing Journey: The Story of The Who (2008) Discussion > This scene p****s me off!!!

This scene p****s me off!!!

posted 14 years ago by nikki-folwell
8 replies | jump to latest

OK, maybe I'm feeding a bit too much into this, but I can't help it because I am a hardcore fan of The Who and as such, any story related to their early rise to fame (or any story related to them period) always fascinates me. With that being said, whenever I watch this documentary (which I do love all else aside) I always have to skip through this particular bit, because the anecdote that Roger recalls here is just so ludicrous that it's infuriating.

So, back in the day, Roger was kicked out of the group, albeit briefly, for storming out of a gig that they were doing while the others were strung out on pills that were screwing up the show, and then fought with them backstage after flushing the pills down the toilet, which even lead to him punching Moonie. Now maybe Roger did overreact a little and probably could've handled it a bit better than he did, but considering what the others were doing - jeopardising the show and putting their own health at risk - I for one can hardly blame Roger for being angry. His eviction, given the circumstances, was highly unjust. The others were taking drugs just before a show and Roger was sick of it. How is that unreasonable? If your friends are taking - what were they called? Amphetamines? - just before going onstage which are causing them to give very poor performances to the crowd aswell as affecting their general mentalities, and you leave the concert because you're fed up with this behaviour, why the hell should YOU have to apologise to THEM? That makes no sense!

Adding insult to injury, Roger goes on to say that the band did eventually come back to him, but said, "You're on probation. One more outburst like that and you're gone for good." What a nerve! If I had been in Roger's shoes I would've told them all exactly where to stick their instruments. "What, I'll be gone for good on account of being fed up with your drug-taking? HERE'S what I think of your idiotic logic!" But instead, he not only accepted their condition, but from that point on - by his own admission - would never again allow himself to be angry with them, no matter what they did to him. WHOA. Not cool, man.

It was ROGER who was owed an apology, not the other way around! Anybody else disgusted by that?

[–] chrismartonuk-1 14 years ago

Sadly for Roger, he was in the minority. He also had no desire to return to his previous profession of sheet metal working and, as the band had just had a hit and were taking off, this was his only surefire route to fame and fortune. Nobody gave much of a toss about drug taking and how it could balls up a live gig in those days (eg the Beatles). Rock music was thought of as soemthing trivial in those days. The last laugh was Roger's, for not only did he keep his looks and sanity but also proved to have a durable and varied career as a singer and actor. John and Keith, much as I admired them, died penniless and wasted, spent forces. Pete drew back from the abyss in time.

[–] repo136 14 years ago

I watched this last night and felt exactly the same. The nerve!
I agree with Chris, just look at what the outcome was. Karma?

"I'm scheming like I'm dreaming on a couch with my feet up."

[–] nikki-folwell 14 years ago

Yeah it was a good outcome I guess (not that John and Keith died, I am a big fan of those two, but that Roger was able to flourish) but it still seemed very unfair. 'Cause it wasn't just that incident either; it seemed that back in those days Roger was often treated like an outsider by the other three members. Another bit that annoys me is that interview where Pete is talking about how during those early years they "didn't really understand some of the difficulties that Roger had..."

He says, "Keith was a genuis, John was a genuis, I was certainly on the EDGE of it...whereas Roger...well, he was a singer."

This comment seemed a little out of line aswell. Everytime I see it I just wanna yell at the screen, "But he was a GOOD singer, Pete! He had such a strong, solid voice - that's a hell of a lot more than can be said for some singers these days!" Maybe the extent or innovation of Roger's talent didn't sretch QUITE as far as the other three, but he was still a wonderfully original frontman, an invaluable part of the group and I dare say that withut him The Who wouldn't have been what it was. He helped to "make them" just as much as the remaining members did; least I think so.

[–] SteveResin 14 years ago

You're not looking at the bigger picture. This wasn't an isolated incident, Roger was throwing his weight & his fists around a lot during the early days of the band. Read a good Who book like the day-by-day one and you'll see what I mean. There are some hilarious scraps recorded, including the one where Moon hit Roger over the head with a cooked chicken

--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime

[–] nikki-folwell 13 years ago

Well there you go, it obviously wasn't just Roger being troublesome then. Seems that they all had their moments of outbursts. Like you said, it clearly wasn't an isolated incident, which I never suggested it was. It already goes without saying that throughout the existence of The Who in their original four-man line-up, there were a lot of scraps going on, 'specially during the early days. Any Who fan would be familair with that, they were notorious for it. But it just seems a little unfair that when Moonie had an outburst it was regarded as "hilarious" (it certainly makes you smile when it's there in black-and-white, although I dare say that it probably wouldn't have if you'd been there at the time - cooked chicken eh?) but when Roger had one he was reprimanded for it.

Still, judging by what you're saying, I realise that there were probably heaps more blow-ups that Roger had behind closed doors for which he did end up being forgiven. It's just that I've also watched a lot of interviews and documentaries with him where he was saying that once he realised that his love of fighting was having a profound affect on his membership, he knew he had to change. On that note, it's constantly insinuated that he was the only one who was expected to shape up in order to stay in the group.

Just out of interest, what is this book that you're alluding to? Is that what it's called, "The Who Day-By-Day"?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SteveResin 13 years ago

Nikki, the book is called The Who: Eyewitness by Johnny Black and goes through their history on a day to basis from pre-High Numbers days up to around 1990 iirc. Fantastic book and will give you more of an insight into why Roger was thrown out.

--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime

[–] !!!deleted!!! (156688) 13 years ago

I was a little annoyed at Pete for saying Roger was just a singer. But he did give him his kudos when he said he become "Tommy" and opened up and become one with the audience during the Tommy tours. I don't care how much geniuses the other 3 were...if it wasn't for Roger they wouldn't have been as big as they were. Pete knows that, even if he may not want to admit it.

I always thought that Roger wrote the songs because of how he sung them with some much heart as if he wrote them himself. He may not have written them but he made them his own and made the songs great! To me that is genuis!