Mediocrity and Pete...Pete...I can't say it!
bushchoked at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 22 11:42:29 CDT 2004
> pressed for radio play. It
> would seem that every copy made it into private
> hands and radio stations
> played the regular version.
I have a single with "Who The Hell." I assumed it was
released that way on 45.
> in some ways it's lacking (the obvious), but the
> remainder of The Who is still
> of great interest to me.
I don't want you (or anyone) to get the idea I don't
still care a great deal about the band. In fact,
that's what makes me disappointed when they fail to
live up to the standard they set earlier in their
If they called it Who's Left, or Who2, anything BUT
The Who it would change the entire picture. No problem
playing their older songs, after all both Townshend
and Daltrey have done so on solo tours.
> Janet Jackson's tit was shown on CBS - a channel you
> only need a TV set & an antenna to receive.
The part that bothers me is: a woman's breast is the
most natural way to feed another human being (albeit a
very young one) and the possible sighting of one has
sent this sick culture we live in into a tailspin.
There's something extremely wrong with that...and I
suspect the name for it is "religion." It's managed to
pervert the way certain things are percieved.
> If Lennon and McCartney were the ones left standing,
> I'd say they'd be quorum enough to be The Beatles.
I wouldn't. I think it dilutes the original to start
saying a certain percentage or certain members of a
band constitute the band. Especially in the case of
The Who, when all four were equally important to the
sound. It's true that Zak coupled with increased skill
by Pete & John was adequate and I could live with it
(not entirely comfortably). But take away John too and
it's just not enough. And calling it The Who doesn't
work for me. It's my opinion, and of course that's as
far as it goes.
> Paul was by no means THE songwriter (or THE singer
> either, for that matter).
That's not what HE thinks...McCartney/Lennon indeed! I
guess he feels he should get his name first because
someone didn't shoot him.
> "That's just one person. One person."
Well, really that's two...and it's not like I haven't
talked to others about it. I have.
> has admitted that bands their age aren't exactly
> sitting in the drivers seat.
I don't think an album title is a dealbreaker for the
label, do you?
> As Scott wrote, they haven't done much.
You might want to consult the charts you seem to think
are a measure.
> And, don't forget the bassist.
Please, can't I? Paul McCartney compared to John
Entwistle is like comparing Bush to Stephen Hawking.
> The dichotomy is different.
It doesn't matter.
> It *is* different, but I too wish they would tour
> under another name other than The Who.
It only makes sense. Otherwise it smacks too much of
"the others didn't matter."
> And you say you're not stuck in the past???
If I was, I'd be going to a show. Instead I'm
accepting that things have changed and not pretending
Who is living in the past?
> It's new.
> It's different.
And it's not The Who.
Besides, as you know, my daughter is graduating
college on the day they're playing MSG.
> I don't think there was ever an argument that Iraq
> had WMD.
There's never been an argument that Germany was once
Nazi. Should we invade them again?
> Hell, we gave them to 'em!
Rumsfeld gave them to `em. He should be jailed, Bush
impeached for lying to the country and costing (so
far) 600 American and tens of thousands of innocent
> Your 'living in the past' opinion.
Accepting reality is "living in the past?" Besides,
that's a Tull song. And a damned good one, too.
> Those can be brutal mornings, unless you're hanging
> with a good friend named Bob.
Oh, Bob was there...but so was Al.
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and
fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war,
there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You
will die like a dog for no good reason."
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
More information about the TheWho