[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V10 #334



Two of Pete's greatest concept albums storylines revolve around
boys----Tommy, and Jimmy...so this subject matter is nothing new to Pete.
But the timing is an issue, and marketing is very important to the album's
success. If the title itself becomes a fodder for jokes, and perpetuates the
non-reality of Pete's internet " incident", than the new album is nearly
guaranteed to flop before the general public even gives it a listen.

Album/song/book titles are much more interesting if they are more thematic,
and less descriptive. For this reason, "Tommy"  was a better album title
that the original working title "Deaf, dumb and blind boy".  Quadrophenia
could have been named Tough Guy, Helpless Dancer, Bell Boy, Is it Me, Leve
Reign Oer Me, or Jimmy,  for that matter....but Quadrophenia was a much more
creative title.

Here's to Pete and co. coming up with a more creative and market-worthy
title for the new album. Let's not see a repeat of "Psychoderelict"...a very
good album, with a very poor title.

FrankO

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The Who Mailing List Digest" <TheWho-Digest-Owner@xxxxxxxx>
To: <TheWho-Digest@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: The Who Mailing List Digest V10 #334


>
> The Who Mailing List Digest
>  Monday, November 17 2003 Volume 10 : Number 334
>
>
>
> In this issue:
>
> Who dream
> The Shout Who Convention 2003 and the TCT
> Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
> look who's on the attack
> Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
> Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
> Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
> Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
> Re: Real good looking boy...BAD IDEA
> Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
> Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:17:21 EST
> From: SicilianMother@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Who dream
>
> Since the list is slow, I'll share the dream I had last night.  Pete made
an
> appearance.
>
> I was a show, small venue but I have no idea where it was.  I parked my
car,
> and someone in the parking lot said, "you parked next to Pete, that's his
> white truck."
>
> Someone leaned against it, the alarm went off.
>
> A tallish guy came out, looked around.  I thought, "that looks like Pete."
> The weird part was he had really thick, like pancake make-up on, and it
was in
> a very dark brown color.
>
> I kept a distance, but I was the closest person to him.  A crowd started
to
> form, and he made a fast exit back to the building, but waved.
>
> Not the most fun Who dream I have ever had but better then nothing I
suppose.
>
> Jo :)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:28:13 EST
> From: Slipkid299@xxxxxxx
> Subject: The Shout Who Convention 2003 and the TCT
>
> Hi everyone, just to let you all know we ended up with #2000 in cash,
> John's Who by Numbers print donated by Cy Langston and Laura from
> Walnut Street Gallery) and a pair of John's trousers (circa early
> 70's kindly donated by Dougal Butler)
>
> I will be handing all of the above over to Simon Davies at the
> Teenage Cancer Trust sometime in the next couple of weeks.
>
> There WILL be something on the TCT website we are waiting for our
> publicist (yes he knows who he is ) to forward the report and I will
> put this with a couple of photos and it will all be on line soon.
>
> Thanks to everyone who helped, attended, performed etc etc we couldnt
> have done it without you all.:D:D:D:D:D
>
> See you March 29th at the Royal Albert Hall and De Hems
>
> Ron, Andrew, Crewey, Mike, Jens and Derick :D
>
>
> "As you can see, an encore is impossible.
> We have drums everywhere. As they
> go to the dressing room, please say an incredible
> thank you to The Who."
>                                   Compere Jeff Dexter
>                                          The Oval 18/9/71
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:10:36 -0500
> From: Sroundtable@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
>
> > Regarding Pete's new post......
> >
> > This all sounds good to me.  Pete sounds upbeat.  It's a
> > good day.
> >
> > Jo :)
>
> It's great to hear about the ongoing work, BUT someone has to tell Pete
that they absolutely cannot release a song song called Real Good Looking Boy
in the wake of Pete's legal troubles.  It'll be a huge punch line for
asshole comedians and joke fodder for the rest of the public.  It's a REALLY
bad idea.  Just call the song something else, regardless of the context
within the concept.  It's like the album story, the boy who heard music.  If
it's released it should be The ONE who heard music, or something to that
effect.  I don't think people realize that the Pete/porn issue is hovering
just beneath the surface of the public consciousness, and will be
re-awakened with a vengeance if some considerations aren't made.
>
> Mc
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:15:48 -0500
> From: Sroundtable@xxxxxxx
> Subject: look who's on the attack
>
> > > Amazingly ignorant statement.
> >
> > Mc:
> >
> > Informed statement. You have no perspective, you get
> > drunk and let people hit you in the face. Anyone who
> > thinks that's "OK" or "fun" is out to lunch in a big
> > way.
>
> Cheap shot and irrelevant.  Another personal attack.  I attacked your
statement, you attack me personally.  Par for the course.  Your true colors
have never shone brighter.  Anyone who disagrees with you is "out to lunch."
That's ideological fascism, but it fits you so well.
>
> Mc
>
> Mc
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:08:26 +0000
> From: "Tom Fency" <tomfency@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
>
> And if, only if, Pete was looking exactly for that stuff, that polemical
and
> controversial ped thing, to promote his work. It's kind of creep and
> disgusting, but Who knows if it's true or not. Remember Psichoderelict.
> Remember the great fiasco of the new releases of Stones, Bowie, Jethro
Tull
> among others dinos. After all, it's business, it's art, it's changing the
> world dreams, it's one life's purpose, it's a tedious retirement, it's to
> feel important and participant, it's to feel alive and pretentious, it's
> being The Who.
>
>
> tom
>
>
> >From: Sroundtable@xxxxxxx
> >Reply-To: thewho@xxxxxxxx
> >To: TheWho@xxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
> >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:10:36 -0500
> >
> > > Regarding Pete's new post......
> > >
> > > This all sounds good to me.  Pete sounds upbeat.  It's a
> > > good day.
> > >
> > > Jo :)
> >
> >It's great to hear about the ongoing work, BUT someone has to tell Pete
> >that they absolutely cannot release a song song called Real Good Looking
> >Boy in the wake of Pete's legal troubles.  It'll be a huge punch line for
> >asshole comedians and joke fodder for the rest of the public.  It's a
> >REALLY bad idea.  Just call the song something else, regardless of the
> >context within the concept.  It's like the album story, the boy who heard
> >music.  If it's released it should be The ONE who heard music, or
something
> >to that effect.  I don't think people realize that the Pete/porn issue is
> >hovering just beneath the surface of the public consciousness, and will
be
> >re-awakened with a vengeance if some considerations aren't made.
> >
> >Mc
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send a QuickGreet with MSN Messenger
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_games
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:02:16 EST
> From: SicilianMother@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
>
> In a message dated 11/17/2003 5:10:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> tomfency@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> <After all, it's business, it's art, it's changing the
> <world dreams, it's one life's purpose, it's a tedious retirement, it's to
> <feel important and participant, it's to feel alive and pretentious, it's
> <being The Who.
>
> I liked that alot........gave me chills.
>
> Jo
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:34:57 -0500
> From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
>
> > It's great to hear about the ongoing work, BUT someone has to tell
> > Pete that they absolutely cannot release a song called Real Good
> > Looking Boy in the wake of Pete's legal troubles.
>
>
> Shush, Mc.  We're supposed to ignore that & pretend the title isn't
> ill-advised or even seat-squirmingly awkward.
>
> Go, Who!  Go, Who!  Goooooooooo, Who!  (Pom-poms, leg-kicks, etc.)
>
>
> - - SCHRADE in Akron
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:10:26 EST
> From: SicilianMother@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
>
> In a message dated 11/17/2003 6:39:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> <Go, Who!  Go, Who!  Goooooooooo, Who!  (Pom-poms, leg-kicks, etc.)
>
> You got the right idea now Scott.  But, do us a favor.  Please shave your
> legs.  ha!
>
> When I have screwed up in my life, <downer personal story ALERT!>  the
people
> who are *loyal* to me, do cheer me on.  They don't put me down, they don't
> dwell on the past. They help me to look to the future and be positive.
>
> I will say, that I suppose this list might be the appropriate place, for
> those *loyal* to Pete, to go to discuss the frustrations they have because
of the
> whole scandal.
>
> But, for me, I still have this, *instinct* to defend him.
>
> Jo
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:30:19 -0500
> From: Joe Lewinski <lewinski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Real good looking boy...BAD IDEA
>
> Mc wrote:
>
>  >>It's great to hear about the ongoing work, BUT someone has to tell Pete
> that they absolutely cannot release a song song called Real Good Looking
> Boy in the wake of Pete's legal troubles.  It'll be a huge punch line for
> asshole comedians and joke fodder for the rest of the public.  It's a
> REALLY bad idea.  Just call the song something else, regardless of the
> context within the concept.  It's like the album story, the boy who heard
> music.  If it's released it should be The ONE who heard music, or
something
> to that effect.  I don't think people realize that the Pete/porn issue is
> hovering just beneath the surface of the public consciousness, and will be
> re-awakened with a vengeance if some considerations aren't made.
>
>
> Then Scott wrote:>>Go, Who!  Go, Who!  Goooooooooo, Who!  (Pom-poms,
> leg-kicks, etc.)
>
>
> Pete can do anything he wants.  He is not guilty of anything, and he
should
> not have to censer his art
> unless what he is doing is criminal - it is not.
>
> Pete has a son, who is a boy.   Why can't Pete use the
> word boy in conversation, song lyrics, song titles or
> album titles?   Changing his plan would be a clear
> sign that the world is F?.#$d Up!   Yeah let's just remove
> the word *boy* from his vocabulary, that'll fix him.
>
> This is too Orwellian for my liking.   Could it be easy
> for cheap-shot comedians to make jokes?  Yeah!  Who
> cares!    As far as I'm concerned, Jay Leno is a waste
> of skin, and the next time he says something intelligent
> and thought provoking, it will be his first.
>
> There!   Boy, boy, boy, boy, boy.  I'm a boy!  I'm a boy!
>
> Joe in Philly
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:30:29 -0500
> From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
>
> > You got the right idea now Scott.  But, do us a favor.  Please shave
> > your legs.  ha!
>
> Fine, but I refuse to wear any skivvies under me skirt!
>
> > I will say, that I suppose this list might be the appropriate place,
> > for those *loyal* to Pete, to go to discuss the frustrations they have
> > because of the whole scandal.
>
> Right.  Keep in mind - if we didn't love Pete & The Who, we wouldn't be
> here in the first place.
>
> > But, for me, I still have this, *instinct* to defend him.
>
> I do my defending in public.  Honest.  On this list, I feel I'm allowed
> to express more of my apprehension & worries about Pete & The Who.
>
> I know,....some people don't like that.  They see it as being too
critical.
> Too worried about public opinion.  Being too negative.
>
> I find it difficult to hide those feelings & not express them.  Wrongly
> or not, they *are* my feelings.  And others seem to have similar thoughts,
> as well.
>
> Jo, would you like me to interpret your dream?  ;-)
>
>
> - - SCHRADE in Akron
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:22:18 EST
> From: SicilianMother@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Real good looking boy... BAD IDEA
>
> In a message dated 11/17/2003 7:35:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> <<Jo, would you like me to interpret your dream?  ;-)
>
> Please do.......Although, I am afraid to think what your going to come up
> with  ;)
>
> Jo
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of The Who Mailing List Digest V10 #334
> *******************************************
>
> To unsubscribe to The Who Mailing List, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxx
with
> the following in the body of the message:
>
>     unsubscribe thewho-digest
>
> Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.igtc.com in
> /pub/pmm/thewho.