Re: Tic prices; Why Petey can't read (his fans' mood); Three of a perfect pair; that voodoo that he do

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

> better off seeing old fart paul mccartney who charges up to $185 a ticket,
> compared to over $500, thats pretty good.

Gen:

You get what you pay for. In adjusted terms, considering talent as a
guideline, McCartney's ticket should be more like $10 and Who tickets remain
at $500...after all, it's the greatest Rock band to ever walk the face of
the Earth, isn't it?
In the meantime, you don't HAVE to pay $500. There are cheaper seats. And
knowing the history of the band, I'm guessing those $500 seats are about a
charity.
Myself, I'm happy to pay $100 for a ticket. Big thanks go to Jeff House, who
was not only willing to do the hard part and actually GET the ticket...but
also is offering his hospitality to someone who's a novice in regard to
Boston. And I also look forward to meeting those I already know will be
there, as well as those I am not yet aware of.

> The most telling statement is "I have no idea what I might write."  This
tells me that,
> contrary to some conjecture, Pete in no way has started attempting any new
*Who*
> material.

Scott:

Or so he's let on. Remember, "contrary" is probably THE term most used for
Peter Townshend over the years.

> I think he's covering for the fact that he's scared shitless about
attempting a new Who
> album.  Anyone else getting that vibe?

I'm not. To me, it's more like "I don't have any reason to hang my ass out
in public when I've got all the money I'll ever need, and can get my rocks
off playing the same old great songs live. No matter how good whatever I do,
it's NEVER going to be considered in the same league as what I wrote when I
was 25."

> Well, whoopdy-ding-dong-shit.  A lot of good those "pieces" of music are
doing
> sitting in some storage room or whatever.  I hope he wrote 'em all for
himself 'cause
> they sure aren't doing humanity any good, no matter how esoteric & mature
they are.

Consider this: if Pete lives a decent lifespan those with his wealth can be
expected to, he's got about 20 years to release this material when he IS too
old to perform any longer and thereby earn money. And if you're honest,
you'll admit that you'll be one of those buying it.

> All it needs is Who interpretation.  I'm sure they could do "Mary Had a
> Little Lamb" quite brilliantly.

Keets:

Now you're talking about McCartney again...and his version was garbage.

> something you'd want to start on.  What are the odds of anything being
> perfect?

But it's THE WHO. So the odds are better.

> Doesn't look like it's going platinum, but Pete's releases seem to have
been
> doing fairly well.

With no major label support and NO advertising apart from Who fans...this
must be considered!

> Nah.  Pete wants the whole thing.  He doesn't like to share.

And considering the songs Rog has written...that's a GOOD thing!

> One of the biggest problems would be choosing a path through all the
> possibilities.  What subject matter ought this to be?  What style?  A
number
> of fans have said it should be just a good, solid rock album, but I dunno.
> Good, solid rock albums are nostalgia now.  If it doesn't break any new
> ground--if it doesn't smash anything, then what good is it?

Hey, I've got to call you on this one. From my perspective, as a music store
owner, I see the sales of Rock going up up up. What are the three most
talked about bands right now? Black Rebek Motorcycle Club, Strokes, and
Thursday. All Rock bands. And IMHO the ONLY way The Who can get away with
making a new album is if it's raw and powerful. Otherwise, it'll be Voodoo
Lounge.



   "When I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking
      about myself, all of us are talking about me."
                George "Mr. Salty" Bush


               Cheers                 ML