Re: Various stuff (long ramble)

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>Both. To put this in a Who perspective, how would you feel if there was
>suddenly a *huge* flood of unreleased Who material made available? Yes, of
>course, as hardcore fans you'd be delighted. BUT...what if Polydor/MCA were
>pushing this onto the 'unconverted' as the first Who material they'd heard?
>(i.e. putting the might of corporate PR behind - say - 'Who's Missing')?
>You'd rather they emphasised SellOut/Tommy/LAL/Next/Quad wouldn't you? As a
>Beatles fan I feel that way about the 'Anthology' - it *isn't* an anthology,
>it's a collection of stuff from the cutting-room floor - golddust to the
>already converted, but not core repertoire, and it should not be marketed
>otherwise, it will only cheapen the artists' reputation. 

Mike:
I think that if some of the earliest material (much of which is on WHO'S
MISSING & TWO'S MISSING) had been released, The Who would have been bigger
earlier. At least on the level of The Yardbirds. Whether that would have
been good or bad is another debate.

>And (sigh) The Who aren't 'better' than The Beatles, either, just different
>(and complementary). But I agree with the rest of it - with one major
>alteration - MY GENERATION changed rock music more than any other *SINGLE*
>to date (the rest of it is true). In 1965, the only albums that meant
>doodly-squat (whether you liked it or not) were by the B**tl*s. The first
>Who album to have a real impact was 'Tommy' (great though 'Sell Out' was).
>But as a *singles band* (and especially as a *live* band) in the
>mid-sixties, The Who were truly revolutionary. 

I don't know if I can agree with that. Even if the general public missed the
albums, it's a safe bet that other artists DID hear them. Then, of course,
there's the fact that they often toured together, enabling bands to see
exactly what the other bands were up to.
 Cheers                      ML