Who Knew; Far-away Eyes; Charley; A different Who

Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 14 06:48:49 CDT 2004

> Man, this guy really sounds.....what's the
> word?.....Leamanish?


Well, some sort of "Leamania" was bound to spread at
some point. I guess the next phase will be death

> did they even bother trying to see anything or were
they just content to listen?


I can answer that, sort of, from other large events
(not specifically a Who show). I know what it takes
for me to connect to a band on stage, and I'd guess
it's going to be different for everyone. For me, I
have to be close enough to where they look like real
people...not an image or a broadcast. It helps if the
band speaks to the audience and I feel like we're
sharing something personal with me.
At the big events, when I'm not close to the stage, I
just concentrate on the music and enjoy.

> Mark's complaining this isn't The Who that's
playing, and maybe this is the 
shift he feels

No, Keets, it's not. First of all, I'm not complaining
that this isn't The Who. It's not The Who. I'm
complaining that they're CALLING it The Who. I'll say
again: if it was Ringo and Paul, would it be The
Beatles? No? OK then. 
The only shift is: no John Entwistle. It has nothing
to do with a changing audience. I like women, it's
great more are getting into The Who. Too bad it didn't
happen when I was single.
I got the new IOW and watched it last night. It does
look the same as the older DVD, which is fine because
that's great. The sound is DEFINTELY improved...but
when listening in 5.1 I'd suggest the DTS; it sounds
better than the regular 5.1 setting. The interview is
interesting, and it confirms a lot of what I've been
saying over the years about The Who.
BTW, watch this DVD then compare it to what's
currently on tour, and then tell me it's still The
Who. Tell me they're "better now." Ha, that they even
come close. No way. What's out there now is a tribute
band to the group on the DVD. Face it.

>  the music isn't so specific to men any more.  What
do you think, Mark?  Is that it?

I think I'm staring down the barrel of a hurricane
this morning and in a few hours, things are going to
get rough around here. It's coming ashore RIGHT HERE.
Pretty amazing. Guess I'll be gone for a few days.

ANYWAY...to answer your question, since the ONLY "new"
music is the two songs, it's not a credible reason.
Think! I said they were The Who in 2000. What's the
difference? Or, to be precise: who's missing?

> About what?

Earth to Keets...

"I mean, if you've ever been a governor of a state,
you understand the vast potential of broadband
technology, you understand how hard it is to make sure
that physics, for example, is taught in every
classroom in the state. It's difficult to do. It's,
like, cost-prohibitive."
    George "they ARE TOO connected" Bush

Cheers         ML

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

More information about the TheWho mailing list