Re: commenting on the "revue"

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 8/24/2002 1:35:27 PM Central Daylight Time, 
TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:


> mc said  "This is another writer spouting poorly researched opinions.  I'm
> tired of it,
> frankly,"
> 
> There is something very funny about your arguing with people who won't 
> argue
> back with you.  I never tire of it.  Please keep it up :-D
> 
> One of our senior listers (Mark) holds this same view.  Perhaps you might
> like to debate him on the subject of whether the band should continue or if
> they are betraying their "legacy".  I have.  His conclusions are the
> opposite of mine, but he's got a right to his opinion.  He won't change his
> mind.  Neither will I.  I suspect you are equally stubborn.
> 
> 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.  How did you decide that "review" = "hits"?  There is no hint of your
> definition in the article.  You've twisted his words.  Would "
> retrospective"
> work better for you?  It means the same thing as review.  The band has no
> new songs, which implies that the set lists are review.
> 
> 

My comment about his article being poorly researched comes from the fact that 
he hasn't seen them on this tour, yet somehow expects us to accept his 
premise.  Why should they pack it in, as he wants them to, when their 
performances are so inspired.  He should know that the Who's live 
performances aren't exactly about WHAT they play, but more HOW they play it.  
This is why we can go to show after show and not get bored with it.  I also 
don't think there is anything wrong with a "revue" style setlist.  I guess I 
just thought the way he was using the word put a negative spin on what they 
were doing, implying that they were just playing the hits to make lots of 
money by pandering to the masses.  I also don't think there is a problem with 
my stating my thoughts on someone's editorial.  Brian posted it, so I 
commented on it.  I AM tired of these critique's of the Who by those who have 
not seen any shows.

mc