[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


>Sorry to get argumentative, but Rolling Stone is so lame, so often...especially
>the record reviews by little known writers.

I heard that! That and the way they are drifting more towards politics
and fashion caused me to cancel my subscription recently. And gladly so.

>I think the Who were probably the most unpredictable of the major
>bands of that time.  When things weren't going right, it was a bad
>show, unlike the Stones who could still wing it.  However when
>everything was in synch, you had a very powerful rock band.  It's
>probably because they took a few risks on stage.  There aren't
>many bands that had the bassist out in his own world with the
>guitarist doing a solo, and the drummer playing around the beat.
>You can tell immediately how much different the Who were when Kenny
>Jones played with rock solid time.  The band seemed tighter, but
>they weren't as exciting. Moon and Entwistle set this band apart
>from everyone else.

I agree that Moon and Entwistle set the band apart. John sort of 
assumed a lead player's role in a lot of the breaks. I have yet to hear 
anyone that can fly that high. Member for member, there are probably 
better musicians out there, but their *unpredictability* and energy
totally set them apart. Pete has never been hailed as a master lead
guitar player, but I wouldn't trade his guitar playing for anyone's.
There's more to playing than a string of single notes played in a blur -
and Pete proved that with force. Moon's creativity and energy are a lot
more *fun* to listen to than some technically perfect-planned roll
associated with someone like Peart or even Simon Phillips (even though
I think they're great). And Roger....only the best SCREAM in all
Rock-n-Roll - not to mention his ability to sing with sensitivity....
Together, they were the greatest. 'Nuff said.

>Also, there is a question I have for anybody to answer.. I dont remember what
>song it was, and it was the first time I ever saw, not just read about,
>Pete's hand bleed..I just cant picture which of the commercial video 
>tapes I have have this in it...Its kinda weird, but I sometime use to think
>that when he did windmills, that he wasnt really a chord being hit, that he
>used the fingers on the neck to make the noise somehow..I guess he does hit
>them ... I thought more as I was new that he did it as part of a "show",,
>I think I am wrong..I think now that he hit the chords..

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Pete hits those chords. Read ANY 
interview with him and windmill technique is talked about. Lost 
fingernails are a way of life for him. I fyou still have any doubts:
-Check the photo in the early '80's rolling stone with the bloody
   hand. (Also seen in the movie 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High')
   That is a post-show photo....
-In our favorite movie 'The Kids are Alright', pay *very* close
   attention to the Woodstock footage when they show a closeup of
   his strumming hand, it is wet with blood
-Also in TKAA, in the 'Won't Get Fooled Again' at the end, there is 
   a part where they show a closeup of Pete's right hand when he is
   doing a pick-slide down the strings - look closely, and you'll see
   a bloody index-finger nail....

>So, sometimes his windmills hit, sometimes they didn't.  I wouldn't be too
>surprised if most times they didn't, considering that Pete probably bloodied
>his hand more than the one time...

I'm sure he's hammering on on a lot of those power chords, after all, he's
*changing* chords. How do you explain the acoustic windmills - most 
notably the 'Magic bus' from Deep End.... Or the whammy-bar shish-ka-bob
on the '89 tour - that *can't* be faked.

> I'm still concerned that some
>material (e.g., the studio version of Young Man Blues, the live version of
>Dancing in the Streets found only on a CD single, and the material on
>Lifehouse to Leeds) is going to slip through the cracks.

Oddly enough, all of those Lifehouse tapes were bought by a dude named
'Scorpio' for the bargain-basement price of $3000. In fact, he has released 
a lot of the bootleg CD's. Most of them are on the 'Scorpio' label, but 
recently, due to legal problems, he has changed the name of his label.

>Happy Birthday Keith..
>Where ever in HELL you are! ! ! !


>Also, I wouldn't want to see a "Who greatest Live" box '65- whatever. I'd much
>rather see a single disc from say "San Fransisco '71" or "Swansea '76". I know
>from hearing individual tracks from concerts have got me thinking "Wow! What
>a great song! I must hear the rest of that concert!" This will be the effect
>of a Live box I'm sure.

How about a 4 or 5 CD set featuring 1 complete show per disc - focusing
on the best shows...........?