Re: the who unplugged

["Gary M. Gillman" <garyg@inforamp.net>]

At 04:03 26/04/96 UT, you wrote:
>I hate to say it, but I think that The Who unplugged would be a disgrace!  
>We're talking about the band that holds the world record for the Loudest 
>concert Ever.  Unplugged is not what the WHO were and are about.  If anything 
>they personified the idea of what it means to be PLUGGED IN!  Do you think 
>Keith Moon would have ever wanted to do an unplugged show? He'd laugh at the 
>idea, knowing full well that the WHO are a band that turns it up, not down.    
>If you want to hear what who songs sound like unplugged, go out and buy a copy 
>of Scoop or Another Scoop.  Please, stop watching so much MTV and listen to 
>your stereo.  I think that you'll understand what I'm trying to say.   
>
>Nonetheless, much of the classic, recorded Who (studio) is acoustic based
or soft in sound, which legitimises the unplugged concept for them I think.
Much of Tommy is acoustic, ditto Magic Bus and Substitute. Even Happy Jack`s
guitar sound is based on the acoustic guitar. PT was such a great acoustic
player we sometimes forget when he didn`t use amplification. When the Who
did the Seeker in the BBC studios, i.e., live, those fast double-strummed
chords were played on an acoustic guitar not an electric one as in the
studio recording. Much of the mid-70`s studio Who is acoustic (eg. BR&G,
HMIB) or soft in sound.  So to say an unplugged Who would be a "disgrace" is
going a bit far IMO. Also it`s a question probably of having no choice in
the sense that I don`t think PT`s hearing is up to a powerful electric sound
anymore, unless some kind of failsafe system can be worked out to protect
him and still let him be able to rock it as we`d all like to hear it
ideally.......Gary M.