Ballsy and balls-out

Sroundtable at Sroundtable at
Mon Aug 23 10:56:58 CDT 2004

In a message dated 8/22/2004 1:52:11 AM Central Daylight Time, 
thewho-request at writes:

> >There is a HUGE difference between music being
> ballsy and "balls out."
> Mc:
> WHY do you feel like you have to take any tiny bit of
> possible difference and turn it into a debate? 

I wasn't starting a debate, simply stating a fact.  The terms mean different 
things.  For example, Bob Dillon's entire career was filled with ballsy songs 
and albums, but by style he can't be accurately described as balls-out.  Pete 
Townshend at IOW 1970- THAT'S balls out.  My point was that Roger was largely 
responsible for bringing that attitude to The Who, and bringing it out of Pete 
Townshend (whose demos tended to be rather mellow until Daltrey, Entwistle 
and Moon got a hold of them).  I don't think the band nor its music would have 
had that same quality with Bowie in the mix.

Why> can't just just leave me alone completely? 

I replied on point with no disrespect to you whatsoever regarding a legit Who 
topic.  I will continue to do so because I'm pretty sure that is the whole 
purpose of this list.

I didn't> oversimplify or interpret or take any of your
> statements to extremes. They ARE assumptions,
> according to the definition of the word "assumption."

I backed up my opinions with facts and logic.  You can refer to them as 
assumptions if you want.  The opinion was stated clearly and there are many here 
who agree with me.  Mine is a legitimate belief even if you disagree.

> >back and very thoughtful, yet he has some balls out
> rockers like Life is a Long 
> I thought you said there was a difference. Never mind.

There is a difference.  I explained this above.  Petty has some balls-out 
songs, but HE doesn't carry a balls-out style.  He has some ballsy stuff, too, 
but I don't think anyone could describe him as "balls-out" when it comes to his 
style and live performances.

> Your arguments strongly indicate you haven't
> spent time considering them, that they're just a
> knee-jerk response. It's just not worth my time.
> I've been very clear and stated it very
> understandably.

Quite the contrary.  I considered them quite extensively.  I understood 
everything you wrote, and simply disagree.  I think Bowie replacing Roger would 
have led to less of The Who and less music like the in-your-face stuff The Who 
delivered for many years.  I believe Pete's sensitivity and insecurities would 
have prevented a great collaboration with Bowie.  The great vision of Townshend 
on projects like Tommy, Quad, and Lifehouse would have been knocked off 
course by Bowie, who as a creative genius himself, would not have been willing to 
merely write a couple of songs for the project upon Pete's direction (a la 
Fiddle About and Cousin Kevin).  He would have wanted to immerse himself in the 
project with Pete, and rightfully so, but I believe that it would have been too 
disruptive to Pete's creativity.  Again, it MIGHT have improved The Who, but I 
don't think so.

> >I have devoted so much time to following.
> This is your story now. A few years ago you said you'd
> only just discovered the band.
> While on the other hand I discovered the band in 1969,
> and Bowie as well (King Crimson, too). At that point,
> I was already deeply interested in music to start
> with. So don't cite "time spent devoted" because
> you're not even close. I've lived music, been a part
> of the process in many varied aspects, for about 35
> years now.

Now it's a pissing contest, I see.  I haven't had the opportunity to devote 
as much time to following The Who as you have, but that doesn't discount an 
opinion I have.  I have devoted immense amounts of time to The Who in the short 
time I have been a fan, and I have made that time count.  As for your music 
credentials, I have never challenged them, nor cast any aspersions as to the 
legitimacy of your opinions on The Who, including this one.  I wasn't trying to 
compare us, but simply to state that I have spent considerable time in study and 
enjoyment of The Who and have legitimate perceptions based on such time in 
study and enjoyment.  You are the only one who has tried to discredit one's 
opinion by measuring the number of years spent as a fan.


More information about the TheWho mailing list