Re: reviews

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> BTW, how do you know what research this writer has done?  I don't agree with
> his conclusions or his conjecture, but it looks to me like he's got his
> facts straight.  Calling the current act a "review" is a perfectly valid
> word.  


See, I thought the author's use of the word "review" meant the bloated tours
of '89 & '96.  But you may be right.  One of Webster's definitions of "review"
is "A summary of previous material or past events."  In that sense, it fits.

The author *must've* seen the CFNY performance by The Who, right?  He
should know that the New Who are playing with an energy & fire not seen in
years, right?  So why the negativity (rhetorical question)?

I think the guy was a Zep fan (if I may be allowed to "profile" for a minute).  He
seemed to think (as many do) that Zep got it right by ending Zep when Bonham
died.

Mustn't defame the sanctity of the original group, apparently.  Never mind the
fact that people in all walks of life have to "carry on" in some form or another
every day.  Are we supposed to hold Rock bands to a higher moral level in
this regard?  Is that before or after the drug use, drunkenness, debauchery, & 
Satan-worshipping?

"I pick up my guitar & play.....just like yesterday."


- SCHRADE in Akron