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

Re: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.

To: "'thewho@xxxxxxxx'" <thewho@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.
From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:09:19 -0500
Reply-to: thewho@xxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-thewho@xxxxxxxx

> Presumably punk has run it's course, 

I don't think so.  I still hear tons of modern bands that are simply
rehashing Nirvana & Green Day.  (Granted, Nirvana & Green Day aren't
what *I'd* consider punk - but to the kids of today, they're punk.)

> A few folks are complaining about the production. 

Well, let's wait till the actual product is released.  MP3 & such isn't
really the best representation of full production sound quality.

> How much do you suppose Simon has done here and how much is Roger 
> and Pete?

70% Simon.  20% studio engineers.  10% Pete.  0% Roger.


- SCHRADE in Akron

The Council For Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/

Prev by Date: Re: Tommy 5.1 review; Hits and Diamonds
Next by Date: New tunes, documentary goons, name baboons, and critical moons (?)
Previous by thread: Re: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.
Next by thread: Re: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread