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

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

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

Because you're not paying attention?


>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."

Okay, I'll go with that.


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

Depends on your definition--there are fine points here.  The falling tree 
produces sound waves, but not sound, as sound depends on the interpretation 
of a brain that is receiving vibrations from an ear which has received the 
sound waves.  Clear?  ;)


>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?

You can't call this a fact, as performance and the reaction to it are a 
subjective event.  You can't negate a fact that doesn't exist, nor can you 
use it as a premise.  Your argument has no basis.


keets