Jump to content

Talk:Tommy (The Who album)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sentence removal

Moon plays his drums almost like a sane person through most of the opera, but has plenty of opportunities for showing off too.

I removed this sentence from the article because it's not encyclopedic... but maybe somebody can rephrase it more appropriately and reinsert it. KJ 09:32 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Who got killed?

The beginning of the article reads:

Tommy is the fictitious biography of Tommy Walker. Tommy's father had been listed as missing in action during World War I, but he returns unexpectedly in 1921 (changed to World War II and 1951 in some later versions) and kills his wife's new lover in front of the seven-year-old Tommy.

This is wrong, the guy killed by the lamp is Tommy's father which came home from the war, and this was done by his new stepfather, Frank Hobbs. I corrected this at 2004-07-17 20:14, but Jgm reverted that at 21:01. There isn't much doubt about this? Sunny256 2004-07-17T22:00Z

Hi, I have the original album sleeve in front of me. There is no "Frank" in the original version: there is "Lover", "Mother", and "Father". The "You didn't hear it" part is sung by Mother & Father; Father sings parts througout the rest of the work. Therefore he's not dead. I suspect this may be another thing that was changed for the movie or stage musical, but can't confirm as I don't have a copy. If so, the right thing to do might be limit the main story paragraph to the original alubm version and move all the differences between the original and the subsequent versions to the next paragraph. Sorry if I appeared short with the reversion, was on my way out. Jgm 22:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Frank, to my knowledge, first appeared in the film, but certainly isn't a part of the album. However, the album's song is also quite clearly set in 1921, so if the article mentions 1951 (also from the film but not the album) then maybe it should mention Frank as well. Besides, the plot of the album is so ambiguous and vague, it's very hard to get anything definite about it at all - it's not even clear that the father kills the lover. John Entwistle once said that he never knew what the plot of Tommy was until he saw the Ken Russell film - and that Ken Russell got it wrong...--MockTurtle 23:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the changes I just made help this situation? Jgm 16:24, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Much better :) --MockTurtle 02:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just chiming in to confirm that although different versions vary, on the album, it is Captain Walker who kills the lover, and not the other way around. It's really unmistakable if you read the libretto. I've reverted the text to what it said before it was "corrected". Skyraider 04:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This "correction" has been made a couple times again recently. Please read the prior discussion in this section and also the later paragraph in the article that describes the differences in the versions. If you still think a change needs to be made please discuss it here. Thanks Jgm 14:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Hiphats wrote in the film version, the lover kills the husband rather than the husband killing the lover, and Tommy's parents, as well as his followers, are all killed in the end, leaving the lead character to finally find both himself, and total, personal freedom). I don't think this is correct as written. First, if the first part of this is correct (and I think it is) one of the parents is already dead prior to this point in the film; secondly, I don't recall any massive death of Tommy's followers at the end of the film version (though I do think the Mother may have died at the hands of the mob). If there is another version being referred to then it needs to be made clearer, I think. Jgm 00:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I never bloody understood it, so I just know what I've read in the pamphlet!!!

see Tommy (film) as well, same issue there

I added a dispute flag about Who gets killed to the main page. The movie contradicts the album based on what I've heard. Hopefully we can discuss it further. --Novaprospekt 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The dispute tag isn't the right way to handle this, and I've taken it off. The last paragraph of the lead section clearly states that in the film version the killer and killee are reversed, among other changes. I think it makes sense and aids in clarity to outline the original story first and then mention the differences in other versions (at one point the story summary tried to incorporate all the differences and got very convoluted). If you want to try an alternative structure, go for it, but please read the entire section carefully first. Jgm 14:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Something else about that scene. This is my own interpretation, but I don't think the murder itself is responsible for Tommy's psychosomatic conditions. The way the song "1921" works, the parents tell Tommy he didn't hear it (He then becomes deaf), he did not see it (He then becomes blind), and to never tell about it (He can no longer speak). Ryu 11 August 2006

In Russell's film, Captain Walker is killed by the lover, now called Frank Hobbs. At the end of the film, Frank is stabbed by the bovver boy and Nora dies of a blow to the head form a bottle. Tommy takes the pinball cross they are holding together, throws it aside, and leaves the bodies holding hands. Tommy's followers are not killed, nor is Tommy.
In the stage version, Captain Walker kills the lover in blatant self-defense (the lover is about to throw a chair at him), so he draws his gun, as he is in full military regalia). No one else is killed, and it ends with Tommy reconciling with his family, including Kevin and Ernie. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fictitious" Moon composition?

Early on, the article states:

The opera was composed by Who guitarist Peter Townshend, with two tracks contributed by Who bassist John Entwistle and one fictitiously attributed to Who drummer Keith Moon, though actually written by Townshend.

Is there any external source to confirm that "Tommy's Holiday Camp", credited to Moon, was actually composed by Townshend? Skyraider 22:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.thewho.net/discography/songs/TommysHolidayCamp.html :
In an early song list, this song preceded "Welcome." Pete: "As we were leaving IBC Studios one day, I said to Keith and John as they were walking down the stairs, 'I've really got to do something with this whole business of the establishment, the church, or what turns out to be the church at the end of the story. I've got to work out something to give it life, to make it real, to make it palatable, but not something churchy, which would make the whole tone of the album pretentious.' Keith said, 'Well I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to set the whole thing in a Holiday Camp.' I said, 'What a great idea,' and Keith said, 'Well O.K. I'll write that tonight.' I thought, 'God Almighty, if Keith goes off and gets into writing songs about Holiday Camps, I don't know how they'll fit in.' So I said to him, 'Don't worry Keith, I've already written it.' Keith got the credit for it because it was his idea, and also I felt, it turned out just as he himself would have written it." ~~ Shiri 23:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

About track 6

Tommy (film)

Bah, I just discovered this. Perhaps some of the information needs to be transplanted there? ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh, they made an error!!!

Yes, that's right! I'll explain it: If we are to believe Tommy was born in 1914, he would be ten in 1924. Duh. Pinball was not invented until the 50's, or so I am told. Therefore, how could Tommy have a "poxy pinball machine" if they didn't know what pinball is? Call me crazy, but that does NOT MAKE SENSE. If he started playing around when pinball was invented, he would probably be in his thirties or forties. Not quite a kid, huh?

If you read the actual Pinball article, you see that pinball was invented in early forms in the 1800s, and that "by the end of 1932 there were approximately 150 companies manufacturing pinball machines" -Rjo 18:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha. Owned BauerPower 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Tommy (disambiguation) -> Tommy; Tommy -> Tommy (Album)

In addition, the story of Pinball Wizard is missing a large detail. The hit was not realsed just as a single, but was written as an addition to Tommy specifically because a pre-final recording critic was going to listen to Tommy. Not thinking that the album was that good, Townshend, knowing that the critic was a pinball fanatic went home and speedily wrote Pinball Wizard, thinking that it was awful "the worst i've ever written". He also added the line "plays poxy pinball" to Christmass. The critic loved Pinball Wizard and Tommy. That info is from the album cover booklet on the Tommy CD

Unnecessary articles

Why was this comment removed? I feel it imprudent and unnecessary to have such articles as have been created ("Do You Think It's Alright?", "Miracle Cure", "It's a Boy", etc.). Can we get a discussion going on this?


Is it necessary to have articles for songs less than a minute long? I understand that some of those were important to the story ("There's A Doctor I've Found", "It's A Boy") but some didn't seem all that essential ("Miracle Cure", "Do You Think It's Alright?"). I really don't think such songs need an article. I believe we should keep the articles for the more significant songs instead of creating confusing clutter. Besides, how much information is necessary to understand a song that's 12 seconds long? Does anyone agree with me?

I disagree. I think there should be articles for all songs. There are nuances in all the songs that aren't suited for the Tommy (rock opera) page but are still important enough to have their own place on song pages. MrC 03:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be articles for all songs. This album had a great impact on music, and each song should deserve an article. Why should albums like The Wall have articles for all songs and Tommy shouldn't?

(to the anon) Because short stubby articles on songs are crap. Instead of saying why can't we have the same as other groups, you should be thinking "we want to have the best on Wikipedia"... and the best is detailed, comprehensive articles with no fancruft. Rather like this one is shaping up to be, in fact. --kingboyk 22:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps as opposed to getting rid of the shorter songs, making one page for all the shorter songs in the album would be good? That could also be done for the shorter songs in other albums like The Wall that don't have as much meaning. Combining shorter songs might even make articles that don't look stupid because they're so short. --Tranchera 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There's already an article that outlines each of the shorter songs' story lines, and contains all the information in all of their crap little ½ paragraph articles. It's titled Tommy (rock opera). Keep the seperate articles to the singles, and maybe a couple of songs that have more to say about them than "this was a song on Tommy". The rest are just duplicates of tiny parts of this page. 82.6.83.187 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the two-sentence articles are ugly and I would rather see them merged or deleted. Here is a resource that might be helpfull here: Wikipedia:Notability (songs).--Blackmagicfish 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I seriously cannot believe that this has still not been taken care of. Those articles are complete cruft. They say nothing about anything that hasn't already been said in this very article.
From Wikipedia:Notability (songs): Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist... permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
These articles are irrefutably permanent stubs. MightyMoose22 14:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Larry Norman

Why is there so much detail about someone who claims to have released a rock opera prior to this one? 202.89.157.213 02:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a lot of space for a specious, unsupported, unverifiable claim. Candidate for deletion. Invalidname 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Why hasn't someone done it then? I'm too tired to do it now, but the bit about Norman's self-aggrandising assertions should be shortened significantly. --194.145.161.227 02:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

about "we're not gonna take it"

who is uncle ernie and what is the machine that he is gonna guide you to?

Uncle Ernie was Tommy's uncle in the song "Fiddle About", who performed some not-nice sexual acts on Tommy while he was still deaf, dumb and blind. The machine is a pinball machine, as Tommy wants everyone to become deaf, dumb, blind, and to play pinball to find themselves as he did. I don't know why Uncle Ernie is doing that, though. Just favours, perhaps. --Tranchera 12:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Here comes Uncle Ernie to guide you to your very own machines." The helpless blind, deaf and dumb followers are gonna get raped by the pervert! Their response? "We forsake you" and "Gonna rape YOU!" (emphasis mine).

Tommy Characters

I started two Articles: Frank Hobbs and Captain Walker (character) which are two characters from Tommy, if someone would like to look over these for any errors that I have made, and expand.

Also, I personally believe that adding pages on all major characters from Tommy, IE, Mrs Walker as she appears in all three versions (albeit, she doesn't change that much from version to version) and Tommy himself. No need to add minor characters such as The Hawker and The Acid Queen.

Also, I believe that on all existing song pages from the album, the story of that particular song should be outlined in detail (if not already done so)

This is debatable. Tommy is such a sketchy story that characters such as the Acid Queen and characters such as Frank Hobbs are about equally fleshy - or rather, equally vague. No offence meant, but I don't believe separate articles are necessary at all. --194.145.161.227 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. On the other hand, it does no harm either, and precedents certainly abound. :) --194.145.161.227 02:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Biblical reference

Can someone clarify me on this. I recall a bible in the passage mentioned something about "the deaf, the dumb, and the blind"?


Harmonica

There is a harmonica in the song "Welcome", I believe Daltrey was the only member of the Who who could play harmonica, but whenever I write that he played harmonica on this album it is deleted. Why? Also, is it known if he (Roger Daltrey) played percussion on this album? In live performances he played tambourine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bappzannigan (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

There is certainly harmonica there, but for some reason in the booklet for the album, it only says Vocals next to Roger Daltrey's name. Top that off with the fact that it doesn't say harmonicas next to anyone else's name, we've got a regular ghost musician on our hands! Ignoring the booklet, it should probably say that he played harmonica on that song. It seems only right.
As for percussion, Moon probably did that on the album, but on stage he's only got so many hands. It's logical that the person with nothing better to do would use the tambo. --Tranchera 11:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Oddie

According to the article on Bill Oddie, he appeared in the 1972 version, Is that so? Andy Mabbett 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's possible he was in the chorus, as they are not mentioned individually, but he was not one of the principals. The credits are pretty sparse on the album, but obviously a lot of people worked on the album. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I just looked at the page, and it says he appeared in a live production and gives explicit details. There were numerous unauthorized live stagings of Tommy before the Dodger Stages production. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing Sections/Parts within Songs

Some of the longer songs and instrumentals (Overture, Underture, Sparks) have separate parts within them. For example Overture is made up of many of the different themes from throughout the albums all run together. I think we should do something like this:

Side One

  1. "Overture" - 5:21
    • "We're Not Gonna Take It" - x:xx
    • "Go To The Mirror Boy" - x:xx
    • "See Me, Feel Me" - x:xx
    • "Listening To You" - x:xx
    • "Pinball Wizard" - x:xx
  2. "It's a Boy" - 0:38

etc...

(x:xx will be the position within the song)

I think we should do this for any song which has more than one part, or songs which are part of the same track on the CD/LP (e.g. Track 24 - "We're Not Gonna Take It" which includes "See Me, Feel Me" and "Listening To You"). I think we should do this because there are some well known "parts of songs", such as "See Me, Feel Me" and "Listening To You" which are mentioned in the article but are not in the track listing.
What does everyone think?

i dont think it should be done unless its listed that way on the album. and these are only the themes that appear, its not like an actual medley

Mirror?

"Tommy witnesses this through his mirror." What mirror? I don't understand this at all. Tim Vickers 04:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

a mirror is a common object. lots of people have them. Tommy didn't witness the murder directly, but as an image in a mirror.

*Heavy* Christian Overtones in Last Bit

Let's see, he is rejected by his followers; he then passes through fire; and then, in the closing shot, starts off the movie exactly where his father was in the beginning (becomes one with the father). Am I the only one seeing this? DeeKenn (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tommy_(The_Who_album)/Archive_1&oldid=928096612"