LAL debate

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

> > everything to do with what sounds good and what doesn't. Simply put
> > the DE does *not* sound good. It *can* sound much better.

Jon, feel free to forward this to Luke or O&S if you desire.

Luke:

Yes it does too sound good, and yes it could have sounded better. In fact,
the sound quality fluctuates within the Tommy disc.

> Can you
> > think of *any* valid reason to release an inferior product? I don't
> > especially care for the 1995 CD, but the fact is, it sounds better
> > than the DE. Then of course there's the bootleg...

I agree that they should have released the "ultimate" version, and do think
the `95 LAL is the ultimate standard for that version. The boot sounds
pretty good, but not (IMHO) as good as LALR(emixed).

> > The same holds for Who's Next. Doesn't it seem a bit silly that a CD
> > mastered as far back as 1985 or 1986 (the Canadian pressing) sounds
> > *better* than one mastered in 1995?

I don't know what you like in a mastering, but again I think the remix is
superior to the remaster. On the other hand, WN was the least changed of all
the reissues.

> > I think it was downright inappropriate of Mr. House to liken me to a
> > dope fiend. Childish.

But it was you yourself who wrote earlier in the same note:

> I think it's very rude and childish when people feel the need to
> trash the character of others

So presumably you don't want to fall into your own trap.

> > Also, keep in mind that I *did* contact Pete regarding the DE. I'd
> > have to assume that's one reason he posted that rant on his website.

What this tells me is you and most likely Fang and others as well have
written things that have gotten to Pete, distorted perhaps, which he did not
like to read. Felt was a personal attack. Perhaps what was said to Astley
and/or Charlesworth as well. But one fact is certain: ALL of us on Internet
Who lists now have little chance of being taken seriously because of certain
actions of the past, and that means when one tries it only worsens the
situation. And it has nothing to do with whether or not the person(s)
attempting contact were the same as those who wrote the offending words (and
the words might not have been meant to be offending in the first place). The
incident of the hotel room doors is more of this. It's something we are all
burdened with now, and I see no way out. Certain actions, possibly taken out
of context, have contributed to this feeling from  the Who camp, and we have
all lost as a result.

> > As you can see, contacting Pete did no good either - he avoided the
> > subject and instead went on with a number of flat out lies.

And if that comment is forwarded to him, do you think he'll take seriously
any attempt at contact from you in the future? Or do you think this
statement might contribute to his already negative feeling toward Internet
Who fans? Could it be that he might be so turned off that he never makes the
possible new album? Isn't this a lot like the fans at MSG chanting
"jump...jump...jump" that so freaked him out in 1973?

We have to be careful. I don't see a way to repair this damage, I wish I
did, but I strongly suggest that you and others who feel they need to
contact Pete or Trinifold with complaints just refrain in the future...as
you know already the result will be pretty much the opposite of what you
desire. Perhaps time will heal this wound. Hopefully.

> Since when was the sound quality of Who recordings that big of a deal
anyway?
> I was always under the impression that emotion was the key to The Who.

William:

But it doesn't hurt when said emotion sounds as good as LAL.

> Luke and I have had public disagreements in the past.  However, he is one
of
> the few list members on either list to actually have *done* something

Jon:

That you know of. Some of us aren't as public about what we do.


"God may have mercy on you, but we won't."
        Senator John McCain


               Cheers                 ML