NOW AND THEN passing through Rabbits.

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: THEN AND NOW Release Details
>
>It smacks of a tentative first step to me.  Like Pete said, "Enough of
>this talk about a new album, Roger!  We'll record *two* songs for that
>new compilation & we'll see how they're received.  One step at a time."

Indeed it does.
But, I hope there are steps to follow.
By releasing these two songs, they basically agree that the new material is good enough for release.  So, their standard disclaimer of "if it's rubbish, we scrap the whole thing" is now settled. 
So then, why stop at just two songs?
I'm getting quite optimistic of a new album at this point.

>It'll definitely get some press & get the word-of-mouth advertising 
>started.

Yealp.

>> 2) It allows them to release songs they can play at RAH without losing 
>> them to bootleggers.
>
>Yeah, maybe.  That seems like it would be low on the "concern scale" to 
>me.

Me as well.  Pete knows you can't stop the booty.  (?)

>> 3) These may be tracks that don't fit on the new album.
>
>Perhaps.  If the new album is strictly a concept piece then that may be 
>true.

I don't buy that.  If these are so good as to include on a 'best of' collection, I'd imagine they'll be part of a new album.
Am I remembering correctly that 'Old Red Wine' was recorded in rehearsals with John just prior to Tour 2002?  Or, was that '(something) Rose'?
Confused!
But, I'll bet we're going to hear some John on a new album.
Ok, I hope.
I pray?
You *know* there are John tracks for some of the new songs!

>But the flyer for TAN (!) (T&N?) says that "for now" these songs
>appear with Who classics - implying that they'll reappear later with other
>new Who songs.

Exactly.

>Pete
>could stop the process at any time & say, "Fuck it."  

That's "Fog et."

>> 4) This is standard practice these days.
>
>Is it?  I don't buy enough current CDs to know that.

I've never heard of it before.

>> 5) They can judge whether fans/critics/radio stations like their current 
>> style of recording.
>
>IMO, that's the main reason we're seeing these two songs on a comp.  The
>proverbial barometer.

Bend over!
Oh, wait, that's *thermo*meter.
Sorry.

>Pete can put off decisions
>about a new album until a later date (after the summer tour?).

They're too far out there to turn around now.
I just think it would be damaging to *not* release a new album given all the hype of the last several years.

...several years...

...several years...

...several years...

>> Somewhere, Scott has a photo of me horizontal on his carpet with a 
>> puddle of drool by my mouth.
>
>I erected a little plaque near the stain:  "On this spot Kevin from
>VT slept after becoming bored looking at my Who collection."

Bored??!  What you talkin' about Willis??!
Bloody *floored* is more like it.
One step into your apartment, and I felt like I was in church.
Ahhhhh, Who posters everywhere!
I'm tellin' ya, it was a combination of that one last beer (DOH! ;-0 ) and a drive along flat roads.  Ya need some mountains in O-HIGH-O! (or at least a hill or two).

>Stu, however, has a giant memorial dedicated to *his* visit, as he
>looked at *every one* of my Who albums plus several books.

We weren't there *that* long.

>My point is, I think radio stations will give it an initial chance.
>Any new Who song has enough of a novelty behind it already:  "First
>Who song in over 20 years!", etc.

Are you kidding?!  Classic Rock stations clamor for new music from "classic" bands.
New who songs will get play.
Unless....they suck.

>And, if the song is actually *good* (knock on wood) then the sky's
>the limit.  It could get tons of airplay & generate a lot of interest.  

Yeah baby!

>Wasn't it funny how that TAN flyer went out of it's way to mention that
>RGLB was about Elvis!  Just in case!

Ha!  I read it that way too.
CYA!  Cover Yo Ass! (no pun intended)

>"Might as well call it 'Won't Get Caught Again' or 'Behind Blue
>Balls,'" he said.

Oh!  Those were good.
Still chuckling.

Hey.  That's not funny though.  ;-)

>From: SicilianMother@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Passing thru Temecula
>
>Don't start any false rumors now Kev.  Jon's wife will beat the shit out of 
>me.  

Mmmmmmm, cat fight.
Meeeeeooooooowwwww!

>But, Jon sets the 
>standard :)

In the words of Rodney Dangerfield....."For what, I'll never know."
;-)

>From: "Bruce" <bkawak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: THEN AND NOW Release Details
>
>They might get a passing comment about their "latest" reunion tour and
>Pete's problem last year.

Yep, there's always going to be that Who-element.  We're cursed.
Do the Stones and Zep and Beatles fans have to endure that kind of shite?
NO!
Just us Who-heads.
<sigh>

>The Who are very easy targets now.  If wasn't
>such a big fan I'd be jumping on them like everyone else.

I've done my share of jumping.
Hey, it's only real.  I have to step back out of my completely biased fandom and look at it from afar.
The view be vastly different from way over yonder.  Indeed.

>Whatever they do will be compared to the band's best and
>it won't compare very well.

But it could!
I hear ya, but.....IT COULD!
"Keep hope alive"!
Sing Jesse!  "Keep hope alive"!

And, from the sound of Rabbit's recent web-post, our Texas key-board fanatic thinks they're right up to snuff.
*That* was encouraging to read.

Is Rabbit really that broke?
Damn, Pete, pay the boy more $$!

>> But look at how huge "Ultimate Collection" was.
>> There's still (at least there was at that time) interest in greatest hits
>>collections.
>
>Really, I didn't see it in the Top 200 (let along the top 40).  

Well, I was going by Pete's surprised sounding post about how (paraphrase) "big a success" UC had been, giving them (paraphrase) "hope and inspiration for the future".
The Who seemed psyched with how UC performed.

>It's become
>a joke. 

A long time ago, though.
 
>I mentioned a new album might be in the coming and a friend of mine
>said "What another Greatest Hits collection?"  "They have more greatest hits
>albums than albums of original material".

It's true!
Why?
I can't think of any for Zep.
Beatles?  Only "One".
Stones?  "Hot Rocks", and now "40 Licks".

>I still get "Pete Townshend first lady of rock n roll" from his "I know what
>it's like to be a woman" comment, from what 10 years ago.

Ignorant bastards!
I hope you bonk them on the head when they say that, Bruce!

>From: JOELTLE515@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: THEN AND NOW Release Details
>
>ous mentioned it last night actually. the DJ said this: "the two new songs 
>are 'old red wine' and 'real good Looking boy'.. ::snicker:: oh boy.." 

And, so it begins......

>From: Joe Lewinski <lewinski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Rabbit Speaks, Begs for Money
>
>It dawned on me that if it is at all possible for Rabbit to
>present music for The Who to record.  Could he contribute
>to the writing and composition?
>
>Can anyone contribute besides Pete?

Does anyone *want* contributions from others besides Pete?
I don't!
We've seen Roger's work.
Gimme the master, or don't gimme.

>Butttttttt.   This kind of conceit or *hogging of the writing credits*,
>or whatever you want to call it *attitude* is pretty damn selfish
>in my opinion!

Whoa there buckaroo!
I think Pete has proven himself.
He's one of this centuries best writers.
I don't think "hogging", "conceit", "attitude" or anything resembling "selfishness" has any bearing on it.
He is a musical genius.
Why on earth would The Who want to produce an album with a Rabbit song on it?
People would be like..."Rabbit, who the hell is he????"
"22 year wait, and we get Rabbit??"

No way.

>As Yoda would say, "Feel pity for Rabbit I do".

If he could write competent songs, he would have done so by now.

>In basketball he <Pete> would be considered a *ball hog*.

No, he'd be considered a ringer.

>Pete's
>the Allen Iverson of The Who (I know, that's not true and
>it was out of line).    Well,  maybe some of it is true....

Pete doesn't have any tattoo's!
And, yes, comparing Pete to Allen Iverego is blasphemy!

>Now I am beginning to imagine what it felt like for John to
>have The Who end and be at the mercy of Pete's mood.

Yet, John had his share of songs.
And, let's admit it....while John's songs were "good", they weren't the caliber of most of Pete's work.

>Despite %$@!ing Pete

Anti-Pete mood!  Anti-Pete mood!
What, did you go to Hanks in Camden last night and eat one of their Cheese Steaks????

><silence>
>
>One note...

Ding-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g!

>From: JOELTLE515@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: THEN AND NOW Release Details
>
>the DJ added that it was a song about elvis presley as "wont get fooled 
>again" started up. 

We're going to hear a bunch of these sorts of 'quick explanations' in the coming months.
The question is, will they be before or after snide remarks.

Kevin in VT


Confidentiality Notice:
This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.