RE: BjornGrowingupwithTheGrammys,Punk, and SEX

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>]

>Ciggaar <ciggaar@warande.net>
>Subject: Re: Keith Moon e-group
> 
>And I am a big arrogant asshole!!! :-)
>
>Cheers,
>Bjørn Ciggaar

NO.  I don't believe that.  You've been bashed as of late by "big arrogant
assholes", but that doesn't make you one.  
Don't change Bjorn, we like you just the way you are.

>From: WanChef@aol.com
>
>I don't understand why "niceness" has to be enforced on any list,
especially 
>a Who list. 
>To quote PT, we're talking about The Fucking Who! Let's grow up. 

I have to say that it bugs me, this assertion, that "growing up" in some way
allows us to tolerate hatred, or more specifically non-niceness.  Nice
message to send out to the younger crowd, that.

Doesn't the process of "growing up" teach us to be more tolerant, and to
treat folk the way you want to be treated?  You got it backwards, my friend.
And, if you've been paying attention, many people on *this* list are here
because they are tired of the bashing that takes place on other lists.
Yes, we are talking about THE FUCKING WHO!, but that doesn't mean we have to
treat each other badly.  That's not what The Who means to me.  In fact,
quite the opposite.
     
>From: "andrew wiechman" <Jovar1701v@email.msn.com>
>Subject: Re: some news
>
>>"" 1.  Roger will go to the Grammys, Pete is too busy
WRITING!!!!!!!!!!""""
>
>Jeff that is truely some of the most encouraging , inspiring, fanfu--ing
>tastic news ive heard all week. 

Fanfu-ing tastic!!  YES!
Now, a question.  Was I the only one who let out a big sigh of relief that
The Who decided to decline the offer to *perform* at the Grammy's ??????
The Grammy's don't fucking deserve to hear The Who live !!!!!
They wouldn't understand!
Plus, I simply cringe at the thought of The Who getting placed next to
Brittney, or Nsynch or any of those bubble gum "groups" for some plastic
photo shoot.
no, No, NOOOOO !!!!!!!

>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
>Subject: White dopes on Punk; Influenceness
>Kevin:
>
>Not a big Ramones fan either, despite my love of Punk they were too dumb on
>purpose if you know what I mean...but they were VERY influencial, so I'd
>have to reverse that.
>                             Cheers                        ML

I know *exactly* what you mean.  To me was the first real push of Punk into
the absurd. The beginning of the end for me.  Who do you see The Ramones as
influencing?  I'm curious.  I've never really thought about that.  I always
saw them as "late for the party".
In Rush's defense (oh my), they *did* bring a sense of "order" to rock.
Kind of "cleaned it up" if you will.  That must have had an influence on
someone.

>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Older Bands and........STU!
>Also, rock is a more energetic musical form than, say, blues, which 
>has an entirely different set of expectations for the musicians.  Nobody
has 
>ever commented that Clapton should give it up, have they?

Nope, and good point.  So, the difference, and the reason that rock is a
young mans game, is the emotion and the energy.  It would reason, then, that
an older group that could still pull that off would be of keen interest to
all ages.  The potent combination is maturity (skill, important message for
all to respect), energy, and emotion.  Sound like someone we know????

>Simon and Garfunkel and James Taylor, as huge as they were back in the
seventies, and 
>as intelligent and meaningful as the music is, have little standing now.

Don't have that energy that youth is looking for.  Although I did like S&G
when I was younger, it wasn't until I received a JT CD as a gift a few years
back that he became my favorite Sunday Morning Coffee and B music. ;-)
 
>My niece and nephew went and didn't say the first thing about TED looking
old.

I usually hear two different types of "they look so old".  One is the
perspective from the younger crowd....stated with disdain.  The other is the
perspective from the older crowd....stated with disappointment and longing
for the way it used to be.
We have many walls to break down.

>Still, it's going to be hard to continue that energy level 
>through the next 20 years that a blues career would last.  Likely that's 
>what they mean by "coming to terms."  How can they keep the energy level up

>without  a) looking silly and  b) killing themselves.

I hope they're more worried about b).  The visual image must be real.  If
it's contrived, they're dead.
Let's not forget that Qad is thought by most/many to be their greatest
accomplishment, and yet IMHO as a whole doesn't have the energy of many
other Who tracks.  It does have "the energy" but in a more non-jump around
kind of way.  I can't explain!

>It's going to be hard to stamp out fresh, new bubble gum music produced by 
>sexy teens.  It's sort of proved it's popularity.  ;)

To me it's only proved that Society is more concerned with Sex then it is
with quality music.
Too many dumb shits living in this world.
You don't even have to play an instrument anymore FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
Let's just get rid of the middle man, and legalize Teen Porn.

Are they commenting on the contrast between age and sound?  And who's saying

it?  Is it just a comment or is it actual discrimination?

See above.  Not sure what you mean by "actual discrimination", but it does
seem to provoke a prejudice.
  
>BTW, I haven't heard a soul say that Tina Turner is too old for it. ;)
>keets

"Too old for *it* ??" ;-)   Sex baby, sex.  She ain't too old for sex, and
that's what allows her to keep on keepin' on.
If she wasn't so damn sexy, I don't believe she could pull it off.
(quick disclaimer.......I like Tina's work.)

Stay in Tune,
Kevin in VT