RE: Who songs I don't U2 to. (?)

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>]

>From: Bjorn Ciggaar <ciggaar@warande.net>
>Subject: Re: Who songs I don't like
>
>>only one for me: Happy Jack.....
>>i   h a t e   that song
>
>But the drumming, man! :-) It's melodic drumming! 

I've always considered Happy Jack to be Keith's ultimate drumming lesson.
Pure Heaven.

>Pa-ram-pam-pam, 
>pa-ram-pam-pam! :-)

Pa-ram-pam-pam ????
You better leave that sort of thing to Schrade.

>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V9 #36
>
>I dunno.  It's hard for me to see The Who doing it because it's so 
>commercial a show--like doing the MTV Awards or something.  Aerosmith
pissed off some of their 
>fans last year.  There were comments that 
>they had sold out by performing at the Superbowl

Yeah, it's not quite The Who's sort of gig.  And really, I would have
cringed if they had done something as plastic as that.
Just didn't like how U2 seemed to really ride the 911 emotion-train.
The Who was at the head of that car, and I now fear that U2 has taken over
the engine.

You want an example of "Selling out"?
Anyone else as nauseated by BB Kings new Burger King commercials?
Can you imagine the outrage if it were Pete's head floating around on the
TV???
Or, what about N-pink's little Chili's commercial?
Y-Yuck.

>From: Sroundtable@aol.com
>Subject: Re: U2 at super bowl
>
>I really like U2 but you have to be kidding that their performance 
>tops the Who at CFNY.

Before this blows into a big controversy, let me be clear.....
I *never* said U2's performance "toped" The Who's performance at CFNY.
No way, no how.
Please, how dare you accuse this Who fan of such a blasphemous statement.
;-) 
(It really would be blasphemous!)

>Yes, it did reach more people, but I didn't find it 
>had near the energy or emotion that the Who at MSG had.

Different (more pop) energy, as someone posted.
I'm only saying that because of the greater audience, that more people will
associate the 911 emotion/sympathy with U2 (now), when previously The Who
was at the top of that pile.
Or something like that (I knows what I mean, but....but....I Can't Explain!)

>People won't be 
>talking years from now about U2's great perfromance at the Super Bowl, but 
>those who saw the CFNY either live or on VH-1 will still remember what the 
>Who did.  Just IMHO.

You may be right there, but which band has a greater popularity at the
moment?
If the answer is U2, you may be wrong (there).

>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
>Subject: Re: Superbowl aka U Too
>
>> Kevin you were not alone here, my friend!
>
>I don't understand any of this.

What?  
I'm just not alone!
Can't you just let me enjoy *that*? ;-)

>U2 at the Superbowl made me lose a lot of
>respect for U2. It sickens me, actually. 
>Football is the
>establishment. Britney Spears I can understand. U2 (or The Who) is
>blasphamy.

I can't argue with that.
It was indeed strange to see U2 there infront of a small crowd on the field.
Just didn't like U2 stealing some of The Who's 911 fire.
(See comments above for feeble attempt at explanation).

Stay in Tune,
Kevin in VT