[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
marty's questions
hi and here we go!
>1) Is it essential for your experience as a WHO fan to be a completist
>in
>terms of band member's solo efforts? In other words, do you, as a WHO
>fan,
>need all the solo albums in order to fully understand/appreciate the
>scope of
any interest in anything solo by roger or john (be gentle! [excluding
RD sings the songs of PT, or JE w/ringo- he'll be doing who material,
si?]), but anything by pete merits interest
>2) What is your stance on WHO bootlegs? For or against? Does listening
>to
>and/or owning/collecting have an effect on your appreciation of the
>WHO's
>overall body of work?
IMHO, boots are a must- especially for a live band of this calibre- i
dont think you can understand this band (not that i do) without hearing
them live and loud= can live at leeds be any more essential? doesnt
that make anyone want to hear more and more live stuff?
collecting has certainly made an impact on the way i
listen/like/appreciate bands- the ability to go on stage and not just
recreate but improve on songs (save the quad tour, which i love for its
all too human failures, and great performancs, nonetheless) along with
inspiring and playing off instant feedback- i couldnt imagine not
getting more and more who, zep, dylan 65-66 and pearl jam boots- i
would be lost
also, the who went thru such stages/phases! r&b, pop, "rock opera"
[cringe], alltime kickass rock and roll band, classic rocksters, aging,
boozing, doping rockers, etc...- live sets are the only way (IMHO yet
again) to fully appreciate what the boys were going thru, and how
people felt about it, and how they were translating it all into the
songs onstage
enough- not that that ive had enough, by any means!
michael
marty, post your who collection- we'd love to see how crazy we can get!