[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [petetownshend] Re: Cents 2 on Scoop 3



Keets, Keets, Keets, Keets, Keets ! ! ! !

Why do I have to keep going through this with you, Glow Girl?? ;-)

The point is, or should I say, "my point is," that it does not matter
whether Pete attracts the same breadth of audience solo as he does
with TheWho->, nor does it matter whether he promotes himself well
(though EelPie.Com is doing rather well, wunna y'all say?).

My point *is* that he is "THE" voice for *his* music, old, middle aged,
and new, ever since about 1975, or, shall I say, post
"The Who-> By Numbers."

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, does it make
any sound?

Answer: Yes!

Even though Pete Townshend's solo career and his own interpretations
of past Who-> material does not garner the number of fans that he does
when backed by TheWho->, does that negate the fact that his performances
of *any/all* Who-> related material are superiour and definitive?

Answer: No!

I turn the courtroom over to you, counselor.

AnEnglishBoy~

===================================

L. Bird wrote:

> Pete does interpret his own music well.  I never said he didn't.  BUT he
> doesn't attract the same breadth of audience solo as he does with The Who.
> Also, he doesn't promote himself well.
>
> keets
>
> P.S.  John's got this same problem.
>
> >From 1975 on, however, I feel that Pete was an equal interpreter to The Who
> >and sometimes superior.
> >
> >Finally, a voice of reason.
> >
> >AnEnglishBoy~
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: petetownshend@onelist.com
>   Subscribe:    petetownshend-subscribe@onelist.com
>   Unsubscribe:  petetownshend-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>   List owner:   petetownshend-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/petetownshend
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/