New music; Before I get TOO old

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> They're lost in the crowd somewhere.  <sigh>  It's what I was complaining

> about.

Keets:

I certainly hope you're right, but I haven't seen them in what comes into
my store. Which is pretty much everything, at some point.

> So what we need is maybe a statistical approach.  Everybody publishes
their 
> book about The Who, and by reading them all, you might arrive at some 
> approximation of the truth.

Sure. And I don't think anyone's going to complain about more books about
The Who. Well, no one on THIS list, anyway...

> Mark and others,
>                Once more I think people are'nt paying attention
> to the points I make.

Derick:

You must understand that when you get the digest, as I do and Keets used
to, you see this stuff when it gets there...I sent that note before I read
yours regarding opinions.

> I have conceeded that Marsh is entitled to
> his own views, that's fine and so it should be.  If Marsh were
> half the fan you say he is or was he should have realised what he
> was dealing with here,especially towards the last part of the book
> notably the breakup, the ending(at the time) of perhaps the World's
> greatest Rock Band.

I don't know that ANYONE, including the other members of the band, really
understands what they're dealing with...especially in regard to the
ever-changing mind of Peter Towndshend! However, I agree with Marsh in
principal on the band's breakup...better that than what's happened to the
Stones and Pink Floyd. Especially The Stones; I made a CD collection of
their best work from the last twenty years...and it was a pitiful two
hours, including a few "hits" I didn't particularly like (Fool To Cry,
Waiting For A Friend) and some they didn't even write (Harlem Shuffle,
Going To A Go-Go).

> truths be left out. Again I must say that What did Marsh expect
> The Who to do after 1982 ?  You don't jut wind up The Who so
> easily. That's a difficult proposition.

I think he believed that Townshend, having set up a viable solo career,
would pursue it (and that's exactly what he did until that career faltered
a bit)...and that Daltrey and Entwistle would do the same, to a lessor
degree of success (again, that's pretty much what happened).

>                            The very fact that marsh calls for an
> end to their career(Not only in the book) and then goes off to
> write  a book about them (as I've also said not a bad effrt),
> is Hypocritical.

However, had that been the true end of their career then he would have
written "the definitive Who book." You can see his motive, and many writers
are no less egotistical than Rock stars.

> simply cashing in while you can. So who wants to make money now ?

Hey, I'd give these CDs away if I didn't have bills to pay. And while I
can't say what the situation is with Marsh, most writers have to get a book
deal when there's interest in the subject and usually cannot before or
after. The death of Moon made The Who a more marketable object, sad to
say...so did the break up. So does a 10th/20th/30th anniversary, or the end
of a century. And so on. Why else did MCA release a stupid 10 song "best
of" called 20th CENTURY MASTERS when there have already been about 10 other
"best of's" so far...most much better than this one could ever hope to be?

                          Cheers                               ML

Stupid Lyrics galore:

"Now that the party's over my head spins round and round/I'm gonna get my
feet back on the ground..."
                                                                           
                                                           Slaughter