Re: great performance is not enough?

[Jeff House <jjthandmeh@juno.com>]

ML  "Where? To me, there's a blank period in his career from 461 to From The
Cradle (other people's songs), during which the best material he recorded
was written by others."

Most of his work pre-461 was written by other people.  I'll say it again: 
He was never much of a writer, not prolific anyway.

ML  "And even if it makes me a bad person, I don't like Tears In Heaven."

That doesn't make you bad - listening to Howard Stern makes you a bad
person.

me  "Why isn't that enough to keep him off the 'meltdown' list?"

ML "Hey, YOU want to put The Who there! Career meltdown indicates an artist
coming down from a high to a low. High: D&D, low: There's One In Every
Crowd. Thus we have a meltdown. Another low: Slowhand. Have you heard any JJ
Cale? If and when you do, you'll hear what Clapton was shooting for (but
never quite got to)."

Chill.  I just asked a question.  I didn't say Clapton didn't belong there.

I was trying to make a point that if a great performer can continue to be a
great performer, why shouldn't that be enough to avoid derision and get some
kudos for their performance gifts and efforts.  I think The Who lands in
this category.

Jeff