[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #218
- Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #218
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 04:15:10 -0500
>
>The Who Mailing List Digest Tuesday, 2 July 1996
>Volume 03 : Number 218
>
>In this issue:
>
> Klipsh Tell All
> Re: class
> Who's Influenced?
> Orlando '82?
> Scalpers
> Re: LMLOTD & Tomorrow Never Knows
> Re: Zeppelin improv rock
> Re: Quad CD ripoff
> Re: Re:Tap into the who
> Re: Zeppelin improv rock
> Re: Zeppelin improv rock
> Pete in Guitar magazine
> Re: Quad CD ripoff
> Re: Quad CD ripoff
> Re: Don't Throw sticks at her.
> New Quad Sound Quality
> Quad Review
> Front Tix
> Regular Tix
> Re: Liner Notes
> Re: Liner Notes
>
>See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the TheWho
>or TheWho-Digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)
>Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 20:46:09 -0400
>Subject: Klipsh Tell All
>
>Fear not, my fine Who fans. The new QUAD sounds great. Fuckin' great.
>WF, you must have a defective copy. As soon as I got home, I listened
>through Punk and could detect no flat spots.
>Anyway, the drums may be a bit heavy handed at times, but they sound
>fantastic and so does the bass...I've gained new respect for John and Keith,
>and to whoever posted that the drumming on QUAD was inferior...I just don't
>hear it.
>Anyway...
>
> Cheers ML
>
>"I think you should keep on playing Rock as long as you have an axe to grind
>and then if you haven't got an axe to grind you should go into cabaret."
> Pete Townshend
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Gary M. Gillman" <garyg@inforamp.net>
>Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 20:40:21 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Re: class
>
>At 14:51 02/07/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Mark (senior?) L wrote:
>>
>>Jen:
>>
>>I may be 40 but I ain't no senior (hey, that could be a song...).
>>
>>>>I would say that Pete was a more innovative guitarist, too,
>>>>even if he wasn't a better lead player (of course, and you can tell your Dad
>>>>this, he's a better lead player NOW).
>>>
>>> No good. Dad wouldn't believe me. I agree, and Pete probably never
>>>stole a solo from an old blues man (well, only a few times), where Page was
>>>RARELY original. He won't watch any footage or listen to any of Pete's solo
>>>work for me to rectify the situation.
>>
>>Best way to do it is to tell him to attempt to play songs by each (how about
>>Stairway and WGFA, which came out the same year), and see which is easier.
>>It's no coincidence that Stairway is taught to fledgling guitarists.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers ML
>>
>>"I think you should keep on playing Rock as long as you have an axe to grind
>>and then if you haven't got an axe to grind you should go into cabaret."
>> Pete
Townshend
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers ML
>>
>>"I think you should keep on playing Rock as long as you have an axe to grind
>>and then if you haven't got an axe to grind you should go into cabaret."
>> Pete
Townshend
>>
>>
>>But this is mostly a question of "feel". PT was a guitarist who played (or
>rather perfected) a style that was exciting almost in an ATHLETIC sense - he
>played to and for young people who wanted not just to dance the night away
>but almost to work out in the modern aerobics sense. The way he played
>guitar expressed all the energy, nerve and innocent presumption of guileless
>youth. To compare Jimmy Page's objectives to this approach is to compare,
>well, night and day. I don't think you can rate the two against each other
>in any real sense. Thus, someone either "gets" PT, or instinctively relates
>to his style, or doesn't (and the same applies I suppose to Pagey but I'll
>plump any day for PT, especially live from '69 to '82 - of course, I'm parti
>pris...Gary M.
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Eddie W. Presley Jr." <epresley@iu.net>
>Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:05:36 -0400
>Subject: Who's Influenced?
>
>For further evidence of Pete's long influencial reach, check out the
>re-written lines from Behind Blue Eyes in The Outlaw Torn from Metallica's
>new lp Load...
> eddie, but we don't want any more bloody passion, presley
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Eddie W. Presley Jr." <epresley@iu.net>
>Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:05:17 -0400
>Subject: Orlando '82?
>
>ML wrote:
>>TB:
>>
>>I have what I was told was the live radio broadcast. It does have CIYW. >In
>fact, so that Eddie may be able to get a better fix on this, here is the
>>setlist. I believe the order was changed a bit to make it fit on cassette:
>>
>>My Generation/I Can't Explain/Dangerous/Sister Disco/The Quiet >One/It's
>Hard/Eminence Front/Behind Blue Eyes/Baba O'Riley/Dr. >Jimmy/Boris The
>Spider/Drowned/Cry If You Want/Love Ain't For >Keeping/Who Are You/Pinball
>Wizard/See Me Feel Me/5:15/Love Reign >O'er Me/Long Live Rock/Won't Get
>Fooled Again/Naked Eye/Squeeze >Box/Young Man Blues/Twist And Shout
>
>I am fairly (not completely but mostly fairly :) convinced at this time that
>my tape is in fact Toronto '82. Though, the sound of the radio broadcast
>presents a much more aggressive band than the video dub of that show that I
>have. The Video sound is weak and anemic and the radio broadcast is much
>more in your face. Though, my tape doesn't have the emminence front intro,
>(nor It's Hard, it slides right into EF from TQO), but the video does. The
>tape has the "orderly" intro to Drowned the Video only has part of it. The
>video has an audible "thank you" by Pete during the start of Drowned, my
>tape doesn't. Why this is so, I don't know, and at this point don't care...
>much! ;) As an aside, it does lead me to feel that much of the Kenney
>backlash as a musician, has as much to do with the quality of the recording
>of him as it does with his stylistic divergences with Moon. Thanks to all
>Who put in their 2 cents so far! Down with WDIZ down with WDIZ... oops that
>was over 10 years ago and they don't exist anymore...
> eddie, it's not like being possessed... obsessed? presley
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: rjh-esq@ix.netcom.com (Robert J. Hundertmark)
>Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:45:30 -0700
>Subject: Scalpers
>
>On the subject of Scalpers, Kevin O'Brien wrote
>
>>Indeed, scalpers perform a great public service, for which they
>>naturally receive a payment. When the tickets go on sale, they get
>>sold to anyone who calls and has the cash. These people may not be the
>>biggest fans, or the ones most desperate for the tickets. The scalper
>>market creates a way for the tickets to get into the hands of the most
>>committed fans.
>
>I couldn't disagree more strongly. What happens often times, is the
>promoter, the hall, and other non-artist types get, as part of their
>compensation, maybe a 1,000 tickets per night. The best seats.
>Factored into their compensation at cost. then, they wholesale them
>out at say $20.00 over face and make a quick $20,000.00 a night. the
>scalpers they sell them to sell mark them up another $30-50 per, and
>you have fans paying $50-70 more per ticket than face. And this money
>doesn't go to the artist. And these tickets NEVER went on sale. they
>NEVER were available to the fans. they NEVER were available to anyone
>who calls and has the cash. and the scalper market feeds this demand
>for promoters, etc. scarfing up the good seats before they are even put
>on sale. If the scalpers didn't exist, the promoter would just take
>his $40,000 in cash, not tickets. but he takes the tickets, because it
>means not $40,000. but $60,000., $70,000. or more.
>
>and then the tickets that DO get released - sure, I'm standing on line
>there, and there are six people in front of me, who have been there
>since 4:00 am. at 8:00 am, a black mercedes pulls into the lot, one
>guy runs over and gets six envelopes full of cash, with instructions on
>what tickets for each of these guys to buy. Sure, a 14 year old kid
>goes up to the window with $700.00 cash and buys the limit for every
>night. He just wanted to make sure the tickets got into the hands of
>some fans? Don't give me this @#$%$# about scalpers providing a public
>service. They have totally undermined the distribution of
>entertainment tickets in America. and it makes me sick.
>
>Bob Hundertmark
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Joe Giorgianni <giorgian@capital.net>
>Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 22:02:36 -0400
>Subject: Re: LMLOTD & Tomorrow Never Knows
>
>At 03:45 PM 07/02/96 -0400, AThosWhite@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>The e. cola mix of LMLOTD on coolwalking. . . (which I just got--yeah I know
>>I'm lazy) struck me in the same way. It's a lot more polished and less dark
>>than the "new" TNK, but there's still a starkness that *I* think makes the
>>song a hell of a lot more powerful. I always liked LMLOTD even if I did
>>consider it "froth," but I think I like this version a lot more--it doesn't
>>seem quite as "frothy." Does that make any sense to anyone out there? I've
>>seen a lot of "yeah, it's ok" on the list, but does anyone else like it
>>better than the original?
>>
>
>Ok, here's an odd story. 16 years ago I bought my mother-in-law's house and
>my wife and I were getting it ready to move into. Every night as we painted
>and stuff we would listen to the radio, one of those stations that played
>the same 10 songs over and over again. One of the songs was LMLOTD which I
>liked a lot but I heard it so much it just finally got to me.
>
>Anyways we are now in the process of getting a new house and it was just
>strange that we now get a new version of the song. I don't like it better
>but around the same. I think the deep bass is great and I also like the
>synthesizer although it does seem to have a type of tackiness to it. I think
>the new mix has a more hypnotic effect to it, kind of the same as "Baba
>O'Riley."
>
>I would have bought the CD just for that cut.
>
>Joe
>- -----
>Joe Giorgianni
>Queensbury, NY 12804
>
>If you are interested in the Who and their records please check out my web
>page at:
>
>http://www.siggroup.com/thewho/albums
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Biggsk@aol.com
>Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:19:49 -0400
>Subject: Re: Zeppelin improv rock
>
>Let's take a good look at this quote from one poster here:
>
><< And anyone who thinks Zeppelin couldn't improvise hasn't heard any live
> Zeppelin. These guys carried the banner of improvisational rock for
> years.
>
>
>Actually, let's really give credit where credit is due as to who started the
>improvisational rock thing in live performances - they were called "rave-ups"
>and the Yardbirds were the band that broke outside the mold before ANY other
>band - British or American - did it. This is where Page stole the idea from
>(like he stole blues licks from black blues guys and didn't give them credit
>- - see the law suit Zeppelin lost a few years ago for proof and the Circus
>Magazine article in 1972 where Plant and Page where called on this.), and
>Zeppelin could not do it as well because they weren't as R & B oriented as
>the Yardbirds were.
>
>In addition, the Yardbirds could swing where Zeppelin NEVER could. Bonham
>deteriorated as a drummer the older he got - he was much more open in style
>on the first couple LP's as well as in live performance (much more Keith-like
>if you will) and then became more backbeat and bombastic as he got older and
>the band's career got on. The proof is on the records and in the live
>performances - I saw them in 1973 and 1977 and it was like seeing two
>different drummers.
>
>I like a lot of Zeppelin stuff - especially the third LP - but they were not
>as good a band as several others of the time - the Who of course being
>included. One other thing Zeppelin did not do well live was fill in the
>holes in the sound whenever Page went into his solos. In a three piece band
>the drummer and bass player are supposed to fill in the sound gaps by
>overcompensating - Zeppelin did not do this very well. For proof just listen
>to "The Song Remains The Same" for sound holes that you can sail a battleship
>through, whereas on "Live At Leeds" John and Keith overplay to fill in.
> Cream was probably the best at this concept however and the Jimi Hendrix
>Experience did very well at it too.
>
>One final note here as far as improvisational rock - the Allman Brothers Band
>blew Zeppelin away in that arena as well. I will listen to "LIve At the
>Fillmore East" ten times more than "Song Remains the Same" anyday.
>
>Greg Biggs (who really knows how to start a war!)
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Biggsk@aol.com
>Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:22:06 -0400
>Subject: Re: Quad CD ripoff
>
>Here begins the Quad CD ripoff wars:
>
><< At a retail price of $31.99, I expect a hell of a
> lot more than why they've given us. Someone really oughtta take Astley out
> back and slap him around for a while. Perhaps he'll come to his senses.
> >>
>
>I try to keep my life simple and easy - I will just sit back and continue to
>enjoy the superior sound quality and warmth of my Japanese vinyl pressing of
>Quadrophenia (which I have yet to hear a CD successfully challenge BTW) and
>will laugh at those who swallow this crass commercailism called the
>remastered CD without any bonus tracks on it.
>
>Come on people - enough is enough. I have heard the remastered Tommy - I
>still like the feel of my Japanese vinyl better. There's a little more
>OOOOMMPHHH on it. I really have serious doubts about this remastering craze
>that has gone on for so long. Want proof? Get and listen to a 1966 British
>pressing of Cream's first LP and then listen to ANY CD you can find of it
>back to back. That 30 year old record will kick the living CRAP out of the
>CD - as most original British vinyl pressings of the time will also do!!!!!!
>
>If you wish to swallow this commercialism then I guess that's OK - it's your
>money. But usually, those that I have heard are not THAT much better than
> before and, unless there's some cool bonus tracks on it - it isn't really
>worth picking up. Sounds like the new Quad CD release, hhhhmmmmmm?????
>
>Greg Biggs
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: chris@trn.or.jp (Chris Hinkle)
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:23:35 +0900
>Subject: Re: Re:Tap into the who
>
>At 2:57 PM 96.7.2 -0400, VoodooCh1@aol.com wrote:
>Hey how come they never made a another spinal tap movie?
>
>According to Rob Reiner, he made the first one the right way, exactly like
>he wanted it, and it didn't make any money...
>
>
>cmh
>http://www2.trn.or.jp/chris/index.html
>150 東京都渋谷区東 3-12-12
>3-12-12 Shibuya-ku Higashi, Tokyo 150
>TEL: 03-3486-8861 FAX: 03-3486-8862
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: chris@trn.or.jp (Chris Hinkle)
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:43:38 +0900
>Subject: Re: Zeppelin improv rock
>
>At 10:19 PM 96.7.2 -0400, Biggsk@aol.com wrote:
>
>>One final note here as far as improvisational rock - the Allman Brothers Band
>>blew Zeppelin away in that arena as well. I will listen to "LIve At the
>>Fillmore East" ten times more than "Song Remains the Same" anyday.
>
>
>Live at Fillmore East is IMO the best live rock album next to the new LAL,
>while The Song Remains the Same is a complete piece of overblown shit.
>
>
>cmh
>http://www2.trn.or.jp/chris/index.html
>150 東京都渋谷区東 3-12-12
>3-12-12 Shibuya-ku Higashi, Tokyo 150
>TEL: 03-3486-8861 FAX: 03-3486-8862
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)
>Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 23:28:06 -0400
>Subject: Re: Zeppelin improv rock
>
>>Live at Fillmore East is IMO the best live rock album next to the new LAL,
>>while The Song Remains the Same is a complete piece of overblown shit.
>
>Chris:
>
>Add to this GET YER YA-YAS OUT, too.
>BTW, TSRTS is not a good representation of Zep live. They were fantastic in
>`69-`71, and definitely in the ballpark with The Who (if in the outfield). I
>offer the Fillmore West 4/27/69 show or the Paris Theatre `71 show as proof,
>for two off the top of my head. By `73 (the year TSRTS was recorded), they
>were on the way down. Even so, they did some great shows at least as late as
>`75.
>Just to be fair about this. And even Page didn't bother to remaster TSRTS
>despite doing all of the other releases.
>
>
>
> Cheers ML
>
>"I think you should keep on playing Rock as long as you have an axe to grind
>and then if you haven't got an axe to grind you should go into cabaret."
> Pete Townshend
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: hesshunt@coil.com (Shelley Hesson)
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:02:54 -0400
>Subject: Pete in Guitar magazine
>
>In case this hasn't already been mentioned . . .
>
>There's a decent Pete interview in the new issue of Guitar magazine (Pete's
>on the cover--can't miss it.).
>
>Hope this helps
>Shel
>
>(P.S. Two weeks 'til MSG, two weeks 'til MSG. Will I make it?)
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:03:30 -0400
>Subject: Re: Quad CD ripoff
>
>>I try to keep my life simple and easy - I will just sit back and continue to
>>enjoy the superior sound quality and warmth of my Japanese vinyl pressing of
>>Quadrophenia (which I have yet to hear a CD successfully challenge BTW) and
>>will laugh at those who swallow this crass commercailism called the
>>remastered CD without any bonus tracks on it.
>
>Greg:
>
>Funny, I don't feel ripped off at all. I have the best sounding QUAD
>available, and it's not every album that allows my speakers to strut their
>stuff. This one does...it has the "blood and thunder" of LEEDS alongside
>with the beautiful bits. Very nice. The Who at their best. I've just
>finished listening to it and I feel very satisfied.
>All in all, I guess that's what it's all about. Feeling satisfied with what
>you've got. You can laugh at those of us who bought the CD, and me...I'll
>delight in hearing the album as if for the first time again (`cause that's
>what it's like) and bask in the glow of discoveries and delight in the
>genius of Townshend, revealed again and again as the true complexities of
>this work are uncovered for the first time. And the performance of Daltrey,
>Entwistle, and Moon...now that I can hear them clearly.
>BTW, about that myth of LPs sounding "warmer"...you DO know that due to the
>sonic limitations of vinyl the music is compressed for records, and the
>highs and lows are boosted to come over the sound of the noise of the needle
>against the vinyl, right? That is the "warmth" of the LP.
>CDs are more accurate to the original music. And that's why I prefer them.
>Oh, and to your challenge of a `60s album sounding better on CD than
>original released vinyl: BETWEEN THE BUTTONS. Oh, wait...how about:
>
>PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN
>PET SOUNDS
>WAITING FOR THE SUN
>SGT. PEPPERS
>ARE YOU EXPERIENCED
>SOMETHING ELSE
>BOOKENDS
>TRAFFIC (second album)
>REVOLVER
>
>and lastly but not leastly:
>
>SELL OUT
>
>Just a few off the top of my head. And I thank the Universal Mind that I no
>longer have to spring for expensive import vigin vinyl and damned expensive
>cartridges for my turntable anymore.
>
>
>
>
> Cheers ML
>
>"I think you should keep on playing Rock as long as you have an axe to grind
>and then if you haven't got an axe to grind you should go into cabaret."
> Pete Townshend
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Litgo@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:07:29 -0400
>Subject: Re: Quad CD ripoff
>
>Greg, re:
>
>>If you wish to swallow this commercialism then I guess that's OK - it's your
>>money. But usually, those that I have heard are not THAT much better than
>> before and, unless there's some cool bonus tracks on it - it isn't really
>>worth picking up.
>
>Your point on crass commercialism is well-taken. However, I don't see how you
>can pass judgement on a cd you haven't heard. I, too, have vinyl pressings
>that are superior to their digital counterparts. However, my turntable
>doesn't track so well on the expressway.
>
>For the completists out there, they're going to buy it no matter what. But
>for those who tune to this list to find out if something may be worth picking
>up, they would be better served by passing judgement after you've given it a
>listen.
>
>Litgo
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Psrox@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:31:19 -0400
>Subject: Re: Don't Throw sticks at her.
>
>Well, *I* have the Keith Moon book by Ivan Waterman -- what do you want to
>know about it??
>
>Crazy Like a Fox,
>
>pamela
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: RD615@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:27:27 -0400
>Subject: New Quad Sound Quality
>
>After reading Fang's comments about the sound quality, I sat down to do a
>critical listen since my first reaction last night was WOW! As to the flat
>spots mentioned earlier by Fang, I just can't hear it. This leads me to
>ponder a few possibilities:
>
>1. Fang has better ears.
>2. Fang has wax in his ears.
>3. Fang has a better system.
>4. Fang has a defective system.
>5. MCA (Musical Cemetary of America) screwed up on some copies.
>6. The Angels will never win the pennant (sorry, watching the Angel game, and
>as usual they are losing).
>
>I think that if you are having sound problems it is worth investigating
>number 5. I have pretty good ears and a pretty good system, and also know
>that Fang is discriminating. So that leaves MCA, the company who used to
>press records that sounded like sandpaper with a little music thrown in for
>good measure.
>
>I have this feeling that we will be reading about this release in the CD
>Watchdog column of ICE soon.
>
>Randy
>
>p.s. Glad that he has a good sounding copy.
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Jeff Williams <jeffw@mxim.com>
>Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Quad Review
>
>Well, I only ever had the US MCA album, circa 1980 print (my the flavor of
>the month, Trish (a.k.a. Trash, a.k.a. Thrash, most appropriately Thrush!)
>gave me) to compare with the current CD. My only major complaint is the
>mix on Dr. Jimmy. After it, The Rock jumps out at you! I was purty happy
>otherwise. NUMEROUS Moon yelps come out of the mix. Listen for 'em. THere
>are dozens of them; mostly in the first disc. I thought the good stuff was
>exquisite, and the guitar on Quadrophenia the song was really stand-out.
>The bass was not like the mix (excuse me, I've got Christy Canyon on free=
>per-view getting a royal boffing! oops carry on boys!) like Entwistle did on
>the Movie mix, but it just kind of growled there just under the surface. I
>notice that this album is the first one where Moon kind of standardizes his
>drums; that is to say, it's fairly easily playable note for note, though I
>wouldn't pretend to match the live stuff from this era, like Drowned form
>oops from the Largo show.... Anyways, my impressions were positive, as I
>have never had the CD, or the Polydor stereo vinyl or what have you, and
>I would NEVER claim to be any form of audiophile, though I can pick out what
>I can pick out, and there's more Moon yelling by frickin' far. Also, on
>Dirty Jobs, the squawking after "you remember how we both would (sic?) fight?
>" is completely missing.
>
>Again, I really liked it, and I only have the U.S. vinyl and the medium
thereupon to play it, so it's not apples and apples...
>
>Re: Liner notes. Sorry boys, I don't give a rip about the liner notes.
>What are they gonna say? Sorry, some of you will like it, and others won't.
>
>Again, the mixes are uneven in cases. That is kind of a mystery. I'm not
conviin-
>ced that all the tracks had the orginal studio tapes from which to work.
>I'm sorry, I didn't see Wfang's review.. Didn't sound positive, but I'd
>like to read it nonetheless. Mr. Fang?
>
>
>Jeff
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: NakedEye10@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 02:03:13 -0400
>Subject: Front Tix
>
>I was just offered a pair tonight for third row of Section 2 (Pete side
>center) for opening night for $425/each. Just thought I'd pass it along.
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: NakedEye10@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 02:03:37 -0400
>Subject: Regular Tix
>
>Email me if you're looking for good MSG tix.
>
>Again, does anyone know which airport has the cheapest ground transport to
>Manhattan. (And Fang, what I meant to say is that in my real -read non-Who
>life- I make well under $20K/yr. It's just that The Who onstage is what
>matters to me most in life. Comprende?)
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: born2run@pipeline.com
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 06:03:57 GMT
>Subject: Re: Liner Notes
>
>>Could it be that Astley is not the one who made that decision? Pete
>>might have decided he didn't want anything to pollute the pristine
>>pureness of Quadrophenia.
>
>First of all, I have a hard time seeing how liner notes would "pollute the
>pristine pureness of Quadrophenia. They certainly wouldn't pollute any
>more than all the other notes did vis a vis the pristine pureness of Sell
>Out, Tommy, Who's Next, etc.
>
>Second, I doubt Pete had such qualms. After all, he didn't have a problem
>with bonus tracks. Of course, as we all know now, Pete's opinion no longer
>counts as much as Astley's. Granted, Pete merely came up with the concept,
>composed the music, wrote the lyrics, sang and played guitar, which makes
>him far less important in the grand scheme of things than Astley, who,
>after all . . . um . . . er . . . uh . . . is Pete's son-in-law (phew!!).
>
>By the way, if it wasn't feasible to expand the booklet beyond 52 pages, or
>include a separate booket of liner notes (of course we all know it damn
>well was feasible, but let's just assume it wasn't), they could have filled
>up the last thirty minutes of disc two with a Pete interview. This isn't
>without precedent -- one of the Byrds reissues contains an interview with
>David Crosby and Roger McGuinn, and the new Aqualung reissue contains an
>Ian Anderson interview.
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: chris@trn.or.jp (Chris Hinkle)
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:18:24 +0900
>Subject: Re: Liner Notes
>
>At 6:03 AM 96.7.3 +0000, born2run@pipeline.com wrote:
> Granted, Pete merely came up with the concept,
>>composed the music, wrote the lyrics, sang and played guitar, which makes
>>him far less important in the grand scheme of things than Astley, who,
>>after all . . . um . . . er . . . uh . . . is Pete's son-in-law (phew!!).
>
>I thought he was Pete's brother-in-law.
>
>cmh
>http://www2.trn.or.jp/chris/index.html
>150 東京都渋谷区東 3-12-12
>3-12-12 Shibuya-ku Higashi, Tokyo 150
>TEL: 03-3486-8861 FAX: 03-3486-8862
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #218
>******************************************
>
>To subscribe to TheWho-Digest, send the command:
>
> subscribe thewho-digest
>
>in the body of a message to majordomo@igtc.com
>
>A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
>subscribe to that instead, replace "thewho-digest" in the command above
>with "thewho".
>
>Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.igtc.com in
>/pub/pmm/thewho.
>
>get me off this list please!!!!!ahhhhh