Where we all at, at the moment?
schrade at akrobiz.com
Sun Jan 16 19:53:03 CST 2005
> That was supposed to be a best case scenerio!
Ah. Even *that* may be difficult. It all rests on Pete now. It won't be
like WBN where, even on the songs you're not too fond of, you can still
say to yourself, "Wow, listen to that fill by Moon!" Or, "Man, listen to
Entwistle fly!" It'll all rest on the song. They'll have to sell each one.
> People will probably compare it to Face Dances.
That'll be trouble. See....? All this talk makes me nervous.
> I meant a little excitement on our parts is enough, at this point.
Ah. I'm trying to feel excited. I really am. What's hard is making it
> Plus, the two new songs give us at least some idea of what this band
> will sound like on a record.
Yeah, I guess that's another reason I'm worried. Anxious. Dubious.
> I won't be worried unless I hear the album and still am not excited.
Hell, it may never even get released.
> As far as the album causing "a stir", forget it. I don't care *how*
> good it is.
What I consider "a stir" would be at least a medium-sized hit (or two!)
& some rotation on the classic rock stations. That would be a major
success as far as I'm concerned.
> And, I'd much rather have a great album that doesn't get noticed than
> a medicre one that poeple talk about.
If it's truly mediocre then it won't be talked about for long. By anyone.
> Let's take your frequent benchmark for publicity in Rock and Roll, The
> Rolling Stones, for example. I actually have no idea when they released
> their latest album.
Good point. And I don't think they get much classic rock airplay from
their new albums when they're released (correct me if I'm wrong).
> If the Rolling Stones don't get the attention of casual fans like me, then
> The Who are not going to be causing a stir among anoyone but devoted
> fans, like all of us here. And, selfishly, I'm fine with that.
More selfishly, I'm not fine with that. I want a great album. A great one.
- SCHRADE in Akron
More information about the TheWho