No Subject

>I sure there were several reasons for including them.  For one, they gave
Roger and  Pete a 
>break--from all reports it's a killer to sing.

Definitely had to be a reason, and the above one makes sense.  
If comedy was intended, it worked.  But, I think it would have worked
without it just as well.
To me, the comedy was a distraction.  Gary was a distraction. Billy too, to
a lesser extent.
Now, if you want comedy, you sing what Pete sang on I'm One at The Cap.
Center in '96.  
"*My* kids in school......."
Obviously singing from the parents view.
Here to me was an obvious jab at their own ages.

>It might bring in some new fans--
>keets

Now you're reaching.  NO way GG or BI would bring in fans to The Who.  No
way.

To be clear, I enjoyed the shows immensely.  They were, with out a doubt,
great.
I'm not one to be critical of Pete or TED and their work.  I take it as it
comes.  It's their art, and my job is simply to "appreciate" it.
I simply don't agree that GG and BI were "needed".  They were interesting
and different, but by no means was the show or production dependant on those
two characters, especially GG.

BTW, always fuck the critics.  This should be TED's mantra.


>From: "Scott Schrade" <schrade@akrobiz.com>
>Subject: Re: Joe in VT

>> I could've been seeing the Who at MSG if only the show were
>> added, instead I'm dealing with snow on my deck (d-*E*-c-k).

>It's a shame you feel there are people on this list who might make
>a wisecrack about your statement. :-)  Don't trust us? 
>
>- - SCHRADE in Akron

Heh, heh.  Yeah, my wife still gloats about her error free post! ;-)

Hey, you never know where an O&Sish flame will come from.
What the hell did some of those guys over there take recently?
Believe I saw the *C* word fly too! :-O

Kevin (appreciating this list more everyday) in VT