Bass Player & Mc-lessness
bushchoked at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 23 11:28:09 CDT 2004
> What I mean by this is that
somehow the live presentation of this music is such a
strong element in how
it is heard, that it could outlive the band who
originally performed. Yes
Mark, I know, it already has.
Only by way of being saved on media, not by current
> But could you imagine sometime in the future, say
2025 just to pick a year,
people buying tickets to see a performance of Tommy or
Quadrophenia as more
of a Rock and Roll Opera, not a musical. And the
centerpiece of this
performance is the band performing it. Just a weird
I can see that, but it's not going to be the same. And
I'd leave Quad out anyway, because the original set-up
couldn't perform it properly by their own addmission.
I don't expect the music to die, but the band has.
> You're fucking hopeless.
Don't even try that shit. You act as if you hadn't
already tried to damage my reputation in my town by
contacting the local paper with falsehoods, attacked
me consistantly on this list, and then tried
desperately to make it look like it was my fault. You
have an agenda. It's easy to see.
I ignored your first post, and then of course you had
to say something inflamatory. And for responding to
you, I get more evil shit from you on this list.
> Can't even have a legitimate discussion because
it's me who is involved.
That's right. It's you and I know you. Can't you just
fucking leave me alone, you pinhead?
Yeah, we see how long THAT lasted...
> I wasn't starting a debate, simply stating a fact.
An assumption that's NOT a fact, to be accurate.
> things. For example, Bob Dillon's entire career was
Bob who? Jesus, how can anyone who doesn't even know
who Bob DYLAN is think to seriously debate music? I'm
> I replied on point with no disrespect to you
That's crap, and this shows it:
> As you often do, you grossly oversimplify and
interpret my comments by
taking them to absurdly literal extremes.
> You always love to attack my opinions
Those are YOUR words. Sneaking it in, or trying to
anyway. I don't want to debate you. Get it this time?
> topic. I will continue to do so because I'm pretty
sure that is the whole purpose of this list.
You can debate anyone else you like, if they can put
up with you and are willing to pay the price of it at
some point. Me, I know you for what you are and
> Bowie replacing Roger would
have led to less of The Who and less music like the
in-your-face stuff The Who
Look, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT.
Two creative people in a band do not diminish the
amount of material. You can't find a case of it. Once
again, you foolishly assume Pete would change but
Bowie would not. That must be because you think Bowie
was "just like that" and not doing it in a successful
attempt to separate himself from the pack (like Pete's
guitar smashing). You fail to recognize, or are just
completely unaware in your vast musical consideration,
that Bowie's career started (and this would be about
the time he'd have replace Rog) with songs like
Leaving Here. Pop quiz, what other major British Rock
band covered that tune?
> Now it's a pissing contest, I see.
Wait a minute, wasn't it you who kept listing his
"achivements" over and over? What, were you hoping for
me to do the same so you could use that line, and
failing to bait me are now jumping on the opportunity?
Yes...I know you.
> compare us, but simply to state that I have spent
considerable time in study and
IOW, you only want a comparison when you think it can
be in your favor. I read you loud and clear.
> You are the only one who has tried to discredit
one's opinion by measuring the number of years spent
as a fan.
Because you weren't trying to do that by challenging
me on my accomplishments. Of COURSE not.
I'm "hopeless," huh? Yeah. It's me.
"We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the
great country called America will be the pacemakers."
George "whatever THAT means" Bush
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
More information about the TheWho