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

New tunes, documentary goons, name baboons, and critical moons (?)

>From: "Jim M" <petenotped@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: new tunes
>It's true.  I don't see them anymore.  Glad I decided to sign up and grab
>them when I did!

What the ????!!!

>From: Alan McKendree <amck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: new tunes
>Makes me wonder, was this a cockup after all or a calculated 
>test-the-waters move?

Is *nothing* smooth with management of The Who??!

Not sure I can buy into a "calculated test-the-waters move".
What did they expect, loyal Who fans *not* to purchase these songs?
I can't imagine they thought that the news of new Who songs would spread through word of mouth (no other promotion that I've seen) enough to get to casual Who fans, and then to a degree that would give them any sort of discernable results for their testing of the waters.

Did they just want to get the opinion of Who-nuts like us on the lists and Pete's chat board?
God, I hope not. If so they'll never release another song,...ever!

Maybe Pete took them down because he suddenly remembered how to write "hits" of the caliber of Baba, or WAY, or WGFA?  ;-o
(A joke!)
>In any case, the panic I felt last Saturday(?) 
>to download them before someone got wise and yanked them offline was 
>apparently valid, just misplaced by a couple days:-).

Funny, exactly why I pounced immediately when I read Jon's notification.

>From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Documentary To Show Pete's Arrest
>"We filmed him in the custody suite. He looked absolutely shattered. You
>really feel sorry for him. 

"Shattered" in a 'fuck, I got busted' kind of way, or shattered in a 'this is such an injustice and how will I ever get people to understand me' kind of way?

While I appreciate the person saying this means to say (paraphrase) 'we will be watching the reaction of an innocent man being falsely accused', I'm fearful that people will simply interpret as 'ha!  look at the guilty perv. !'

>"We have part of the police interview as Pete gave us permission to use 
>it. He handled himself with dignity and explained himself very well."

This will obviously be incredibly fascinating.
Also, I'd imagine Pete's legal council gave the ok to use this.
So, maybe it will put a final "Pete is innocent!" stamp on the whole thing.
(not that I need convincing...)

>Long says the arrest is a warning to the curious: "Don't be curious - it 
>will destroy your life."

Shit!  Someone define what "curious" means!!!!
Don't let there be this image of "curious" as in "I'm curious what color panties that chick is wearing"
Townshend's arrest is just a small segment of the documentary, shown on 
March 23.

>investigation into the death of a girl of five.
>Long said: "Seeing the pain and distress on the faces of kids being abused 
>is haunting."

What a sick world we live in.
This whole Who-chapter is haunting.

>From: "JET" <jet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Coming out of 'lurk' mode
>I have been observing this list for a little while


>and decided that the time
>had come where I had to chime in...

<launch ominous music sequence!>

>First, I'll introduce myself. My name is John,


>I'm 44,

Ya old fart!

>live in central MA,

Ya liberal old fart!
>a bass player tremendously influenced by JAE

Are there any other kind?  ;-)
>and as a musician and songwriter
>highly influenced by PT.

See above statement.

>Now for the reason I'm chiming in....
>I was surprised none of the learned
>members of the list proposed the idea that the "sniffing" referred to in ORW
>is a part of the process of consuming wine. Sniff the cork, swirl a bit 'round
>the glass, taste it, and tell the wait staff if you approve or not.

Well, just because none of us said anything, doesn't mean we weren't thinking it.
But, in this case, I think what you have written is the, what I like to call..."Pete's surface meaning". 
But, what we have come to learn from Pete, is that he has layers in his meanings.  He loves the dual meaning, the innuendo, the implication.
And, who doesn't??
I love it too.
It shows intellect.  It makes ya think.
Don't just stop at the initial thought, but re-think, and dig deeper.

>I also seem to recall Pete
>making a tongue in cheek comment before one of the last tours about "keeping
>John in that expensive red French muck he seems to prefer."

Yeah, man, I've been thinking about that very statement too.
Pete kind of railed back then at how John like to live exuberantly, while Pete took a more reserved route.
So, maybe there was the intent in Pete's lyrics to point out that picking from the bottom of the list was choosing the more expensive wine.  Maybe it was an obvious reference to John's liking of expensive wine.
But, given Pete's propensity for layered meanings, and obvious anger expressed in portions of ORW, I'm more inclined to go with the innuendo that the wine sucked, and John didn't need to be in that hotel room, with that whore, snorting cocaine, given his heart condition, etc.
"Goddamn Ox."
I've obviously still got some resentment there too.
Love ya, John (OX), but.....DAMN !!

>Just my two cents.

Looking forward to future deposits!

>From: Marcus Surrealius <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: The name game
>> But, the name Who2 is definitely catching on.
>I still like "Who's Left" better. It's more in line
>with their sense of humor.

Me2.  Who2 sounds so close to U2.
Speaking of which, I keep thinking of Edge's guitar work in that one song called (with or without you???  that's not right, is it??) when I listen to RGLB.
I don't know why.
Something familiar about it.

>I might be in Boston before that. On business, the
>saving the country kind. Or somewhere in Mass, anyway.

Looking to get married?   ;-)

>> Have I heard any *old* ELP?  ;-)
>That's YOUR problem!

Not sure I see it as a problem.  ;-)

>Have Bob standing by to get you through.

He's a great chap.

>From: Keithjmoon70@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.
>Pete is writing to us.

This struck me too.
In WN, Pete was writing.
In Quad, Pete was writing to us.
In RGLB, Pete again is writing to us.

I take it as a huge compliment that Pete is writing to us.
Pete says "fuck you" to his fans?

>He told me "Jon, in the sixties, in rock everybody wrote 
>deep music.  It just doesn't happen anymore.  Pete is still writing it.  This is 
>the best I've heard the Who sound since WGFA."

That's telling.
And, thank god (or some other equivalent).
I'm glad Pete isn't "dumbing-down" his writing to simply try and fit into today's top 10.

People need to alter their perceptions, not Pete altering his writing.

>From: JOELTLE515@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.
>> Pete is writing to us.
>I say that's the problem.  remember when the original lineup of KISS did

You lost me right there...

>I rest my case.. 

What case?  ;-)

>From: Jdtr006@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Summer Tour and new album..Guitar Heros CD
>Kevin...I am not sure if this was on MTV or not. It says it is a Time Life 
>Video if that helps. It is good though.

It does.  Thanks!
Time life, huh?
That seems to ring a bell.
I believe this was aired on cable a number of months ago.
(standard disclaimer of potentially being wrong applies...)

>Has anyone found the words to the 2 new Who songs?

Jon posted them under "New songs (or music) - Lyrics."

>From: Keithjmoon70@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.
>Offense taken!!  Are you suuuure you are a Who fan? 


> ;-)

I ain't laughing!

>From: JOELTLE515@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.
>thanks for accepting my opinion. even though I havent heard the songs yet 

Back the trolley up there...!
You're being this critical and you haven't even *heard* the new songs yet??
Why should we listen to you right now, again????  ;-)
You can't just read the lyrics and draw conclusions.
I'd bet I could grab 10 greatest hits of all time, read the lyrics, and think they suck.
"Purple Haze...Excuse me, while I kiss the sky (kiss this guy?)."
IMHO, you have to look at the whole painting, not just the colors of the paint.

>(here comes the backlash. haha!)

Shit, fell into that one!

>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Hits and Diamonds. They're not the same thing.
>someone on TheShout suggested that these were demos (aka trial 
>balloons), and that we might find completely different versions on later 

I wondered about that.
You can clearly hear "tapping" (keeping time, etc.) and other studio noise in the songs (used headphones).
Listen to right before the jam at the end of ORW...
Is that noise Pete strumming hard on his guitar, but it's not on?  It seems to continue into the jam and matches Pete's guitar strikes.
There's all sorts of noise that just *shouldn't* be in a final album release.
They didn't seem polished.

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.