?

["Jeff House" <whocasa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Schrade said:
> "Do you see what you're doing, Jeff?  You're assuming that because
> Mark & I are being critical about some facets of the 2002 incarna-
> tion of The Who we must be having some sort of internal crisis,
> shaking the very foundation of our Who fandom."
>
 Not really true as far as you're concerned.  I was just butting into your
questioning of the contradiction between your ears at the Columbus show and
youur ears after listening to the Encore CDs.

 BTW, I saw the look on your face after Boston I.  You did not look happy.
I was not particularly happy.  It was a bit of an internal shock for me.
I'm not assuming your thoughts, just trying to discuss them.

As far as Mark is concerned, I think he's been pretty open about not
supporting The Who in it's current incarnation.  In his view continuing
post-Ox was a bad idea, issuing the Encore CDs was a bad idea, calling
themselves The Who was a bad idea, the set lists are bad, etc.  He's been
using the negative comments of others to *prove* that his opinions are
truth.

> "I can honestly say, that's not the case with me at all."

 That's great.  It really is.

> "Why can't we express our opinions without being looked upon as traitors?
> Why can't we speak our mind without being seen as losing the faith?
> Why can't we impart our grievances without being seen as stubborn or
> uncaring?  Why can't we relate our feelings without being seen as cold &
> judgmental?"
>

 I'm can't really respond to this effectively because of the "we"s.  It is
just too complicated and assumptive to wrap my mind around your questions.
I will say again that I've never told anyone to shut up about this and I'm
not terribly concerned about Who loyalty.

Why is it that when I disagree or question a premise, I am accused of trying
to stop others from expressing their opinions?   I have no say in who says
what or how they say it.

> "And you seem to think it's unfair to compare the Who of today with the
> Who of yesterday.  But is it?  If the Who of yesterday is the Who that
> sparked our interest in their music, then how can comparisons *not*
> be made?"
>

 Because The Who of yesterday does not exist any more.

Why compare Tommy to My Generation?  Why compare Quad to WBN?  Why compare
Pete on Rickenbacker to Pete on Strat?  Why compare The Who to The Stones?
Why compare the JEB to The Who?  Why compare Entwistle clean to Entwistle
distorted?  Why compare me to John C. Holmes?  When comparing, why declare
something as "objectively" and/or "quantitatively" better?  Why not just say
you prefer something or that they are simply different?  I'm not saying
don't do it, just asking about the premises.

> "Why shouldn't we compare how Daltrey's voice sounded in 1975 with how it
> sounds today?  What are we here for?  Why did we invest so much time &
> energy loving this band if we're not allowed to view their current output
> of beautiful noise with their gloried past?"
>

Go for it.  I just think there is a difference between saying "his voice is
shot" and "his voice isn't what it used to be".  It is the difference
between saying "He can't fuck any more" and "He doesn't fuck as good as he
used to".  Huge difference IMO.

 I'm in complete agreement with the rest of your rant and offer no further
counterpoints.

 Jeff