Re: Pete's Pissy Mood

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@akrobiz.com>]

>   I'd rather they surprise me with something fresh and original.

But why must they deviate from their proven formula in order for you
to be pleased.  Are you saying that just another "rock" album would 
be a disappointment?  Does it really have to "break new ground" in
order to be deemed a successs?

Aren't you setting your standards too high?  As I've stated before, I'd
be very happy with a solid rock album with a handful of decent, stimu-
lating songs.  I really don't want to be surprised by some large jump in
technique or approach.

The magic of The Who is the coming together & playing of TED.  
*That's* what's been getting us off all these years.  The Who are great
at making Who music - not blindly grappling with musical genres.

Now, I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I know The Who can
be innovative & groundbreaking.  But it sounds to me like you're longing
for some kind of leap into new musical areas.  Wouldn't that come
across as desperate & fake?

> Certainly it (Punk) did, because the philosophy required that they quit before 
> they developed in any way as musicians.

Well, that's a bit of a myth.  Many Punk pioneers could in fact play very well.
Pete was speaking of Punk's complete avoidance of any of Rock music's
foundations (blues, jazz, etc.).

> I loved the techno sound.  

Yuck!

> What's new on the horizon?  Groove?  Maybe unsuitable for The Who.  I hear 
> the chill ablum is the latest thing.  Also unsuitable.  Hmmm.  I guess we'll 
> just have to let them do it.

Is Crazy Keets saying she wants The Who to jump on some sort of new music-
al bandwagon?  Boy, that girl's got balls!

> >   (cough)
> 
> Echinasea.

Eh?


- SCHRADE in Akron