Re: doing unplugged

["Ian M. Derby" <csc2imd@cabell.vcu.edu>]

> 
> Regarding Pete's alleged comments about Clapton, all I can say is that he should
> know, his versions of the Who over the last several years kinda sound like that.

NEVER and I repeat NEVER compare any era of the Who to
Clapton's schmaltz of recent years again!!  May you be locked away in a
dark room to hear "Tears in Heaven" endlessly until you crumble.
At least the Who showed some spirit and energy, dare I say life?  
No it wasn't 1970-71, but how many bands sustain the energy from
their prime? How many bands had to be compared with the Who's
presence and energy as their benchmark?  

At least Clapton came to life on "From the Cradle", and for that I'm
grateful.  Now if he'll only reform Cream.

> 
> He'd love to do it and he knows it and he knows that I know that he knows it (now that's
> stretching it a bit).
> 

Just drop the idea, it'll never happen.  Unplugged turned from a
novelty into a contract obligation for every rising artist.  For
those who have been around the block a couple times, the end result
an uninspired performance.  Even after three years, Clapton's album
doesn't stand up (at least to me).  Neil Young's unplugged is a
little better, but again it's bland.  Don't even mention Rod
Stewart.  I must admit I liked Dylan's performance, but will I say the 
same thing after 10 listens?


Id rather see Pete do an all acoustic performance seperate from MTV
and then release the CD, Video etc.  There is just something
about MTV that seems to undermine it all.