Re: Wood-shuck; Remixes; Can you hear the real me; Read my lips: No New Disney!

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

> All possibilities of why woodstock was not released.

Scott:

The main reason it wasn't released is that The Who weren't on Atlantic.
Notice how many CSN&Y songs were on the original release (and even more on
the boxed set) compared to ANY other artist. Then it all becomes clear...
Also, LAL was released the same year. Since it was originally slated to be a
double and Decca backed down on that, imagine what they would have said to a
Woodstock release!

> I was pleased with the two new TKAA and MG mp3s from the summer tour.
They
> would serve as the outline for an album, but even if The Who never go on
and
> record any more songs for it, those two are enough for me.  The message
came
> across.

Keets:

If you say so. To me, it was no more than lyrical free-association much like
some of Townshend's solo concerts often include.

> The album remasters is what we were discussing, though.  Roger wants to
sing
> the songs, not sit and listen to old tapes.

I think their legacy is his primary concern, and that would include
listening to the old tapes.

> tinnitus, though.  Do you suppose Pete woke up the morning after with
noise
> in his head and it's been there ever since?

No. I think he probably first encountered tinnitus the first time they used
Marshalls...would that be `65 or `66? Perhaps after a while the aftereffects
of the shows began to run together.

> What did you think of Dylan's Oscar?

Pretty damned strange, but it wasn't a song written for a children's movie.
I've seen no indication it was even written for Wonderboys.

> Is that rock music?

Oh yeah.

> I thought you had a pretty strict definition.

I do. They fit it. Rage, too.

> I don't know that they're into change just for the sake of changing.
> Wouldn't that be what The Stones do?

Now that's not what I said. I said they don't have to ONLY do the "classic"
Who sound, if they wanted to do something else. That doesn't mean they have
to seek change.

> I'm sure nothing of the sort actually took place, but when managers
> can't, won't don't or are afraid to tell the artist that an artist's
> decision isn't always the best one, then you get artistes making wrong
> decisions.

John:

You actually think at this point Curbishley is afraid to speak up? I would
think the time of being timid is long past. If he loses The Who at this
point, what's he really lost? Fuck, Lil Bow Wow makes more money than The
Who these days!

> keets has already responded nicely to the labeling box that you and others
> want Pete to live in, but I must add.

Jeff:

I'm not trying to put Pete in a box. I merely said PLEASE GAWD DON'T LET HIM
END UP LIKE ELTON JOHN AND STING, WRITING FUCKING DISNEY SONGS. That's all.
He can do Broadway for all I care BUT I'd rather he didn't take the epitome
of Rock Music itself, its high water point (to date), and turn it into "La
la la la/Can you see/Bop bop bop/The real me/La la la la/Mater/Bop she
bop/MATER!..."

> Interesting that you define Elton John as a "Rock writer".

Hey...I was being nice. I can be nice...see?

> I would define him as a music writer and performer.

We were talking about writing not performing...however, he wrote Rock music
therefore he's a Rock writer. Grey Seal is certainly Rock, Lady Samantha,
Levon, and so on...all Rock.

> box Pete into the category of "Rock writer".  He has rebelled against that
> label and will continue to do so, it stymied him - IMHO.

Again, if he chooses not to write Rock, fine. Just don't water down,
pervert, sanitize my favorite Rock album of all time!

> I say cut Pete some slack on the Broadway thing.  Open your mind, Quad may
> touch you in a new way.

Yeah...in a Pepto Bizmol sort of way.


"Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself."
             George "Sha-ZAM!" Bush
       On how far we'd be willing to go to defend Taiwan


               Cheers                 ML