Re: who DVD idea (plus a note to schrade)

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> know of a performance of "tommy" that could be represented in the 
> "tommy" disc that wasn't in 1989 schrade? 

Well, Bruce listed some but they're shows I've never seen.  I couldn't
comment on the quality, etc.  Maybe the TOMMY segment of your imaginary
DVD set could be a pieces-parts thig-a-ma-jig, using clips from several
performances.  Or, is using full complete shows one of your parameters?

> or a stadium show that was filmed NOT in 1989?

You'd probably have to venture back to '82 for that.  There's San Diego,
Giants Stadium,.....

Another performance I though about - that would make a good "bonus" seg-
ment - is their three songs from the Brit Awards (what year was that?
1987?), their last performance with Kenney Jones.  The Who were supposed 
to be the highlight at the end of the awards show, but the show ran long
&, embarrassingly, credits were rolled over top the band while they were
playing.  Pete looked stiff as a board at that show.  One of those rare
times where he looked really uncomfortable on stage.

Oh, & don't forget about LIVE AID!  

> saying the stones are the greatest band when it comes to marketing and 
> promoting and all that (by the way, shouldn't KISS qualify also?)

Yeah, but you know what I mean.  KISS isn't in the same league as the 
Stones.  KISS is small potatoes when it comes to the Stones.  Perhaps I
didn't express myself clearly; it's not *all* about marketing & promotion.
The Stones just have that aura of greatness about them.  Top of the food
chain.  They do things BIG - and can back it up with solid performances
creating solid entertainment.

> others might argue that the who are better by just keeping their tours 
> simple. 

True, but it's weird with The Who because they *were* there once.  They
were at the top, stride for stride, in league with the Stones.  From the
late '60s through the early '80s The Who *were* that BIG.  Then they (Pete)
sort of just dropped out of the race while the Stones continued to build
& build & build.

I know,....you can argue & argue about how vital the Stones studio efforts
were in that period, but the fact is they kept creating & taking chances.
The Stones continued to build & create while The Who basically became a
review show.  The occasional tribute to themselves.

> although it would be nice to hear a different setlist each night.

A big negative when it comes to Who tours, BUT, they did pull a few sur-
prises in 2000 &, from the rumors, 2002 might have had even more of a
varied setlist (with selections from WHO BY NUMBERS).......had OX lived.

<sigh>

> the stones are a "brand" name, just look at that logo of theirs, its
> everywhere!

The Who logo was nearly everywhere in '79.  (Archie & Edith, if you'll
please:  "Thoooose were the days.")

I have to go to a party tonight & the dude who's throwing it is a HUGE
Stones nut.  And so is my friend Curtis who will be there.  And so is my
friend Matt who will be there.  I just know that Four Flicks will be 
busted out & I'm gonna sit there & seethe with Who anger as I watch Mick
prance around, Ron Wood smoke, Keith Richards smirk, & Charlie Watts
drive.  I'm gonna seethe with Who anger.  I'm gonna seethe with Stones
jealousy.  My Dr. Jimmy will become Mr. Gin.  Heaven forbid if I have a
shot of Jager.

> the who on the other hand, don't make their tours that much of a big
> deal. 

Kind of like REO Speedwagon.

> wanna know how much of that stones DVD I think were overdubbed or mixed 
> to make the band sound better?  

Yeah, the sound was very placid & controlled, you're right.  Not very
raw & exciting, to say the least.  But remember, I never said the Stones'
*music* was better than The Who's; just their game-plan.

And did you notice the annoying quick-cut editing on those Stones DVDs?
Worse than The Who's RAH DVD.  You know how it is:  they try to give an
"older" band a more modern, hipper look by using very fast editing so the
band seems to be exerting more energy than they actually are.  Plus, it
gives you less time to dwell on wrinkles, hair lines, & the like.
  
> by the way, I have a crazy idea

You need to get Crazy Joe's permission for any crazy ideas, Ernie.

> of letting that set be volume 2 while the 60's-80's material be volume 1.
> i'll post my ideas for that later on. (hope it's not a waste of time)

Not at all.  Discussion leads to discussion.  That's why we're here.

> > I've got plenty of Sinead to satisfy me.  ;-)
>
> she's in your bed right now isn't she?! ; )

Lord, I wish.  I chew on her neck like beef jerky.  Ironically, I did jam
some Sinead today.  I played her FAITH & COURAGE album which was released
in 2000.  An album I wasn't too impressed with when I bought it, but now
it seems brilliant to me.  Lots of great songs.  Her strongest album of 
the past ten years.


- SCHRADE in Akron