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

Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #533



At 08:53 PM 8/18/96 -0700, TheWho@igtc.com wrote:
>
>The Who Mailing List Digest       Sunday, 18 August 1996       
>Volume 03 : Number 533
>
>In this issue:
>
>	Who's mad?
>	who's the who
>	MuchMusic torture
>	Quadrophenia sounds
>	The Who live in LA
>	Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #532
>	Re: TKAA
>	Re: (No subject)
>	Mailing List
>	Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #532
>	Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #532
>
>See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the The Who
>mailing list and on how to retrieve back issues.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: "Jennifer L. Davies" <jen@nt.net>
>Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 23:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Who's mad?
>
>Yellow wrote:
>>I always figured it was because Pete was slighty mad and John wasn't...
>
>"Look who's crawling up my wall...."
>"If they can't see my Whiskey Man they must be going blind...."
>"He'll be too cold and bony/Never gonna go away again...."
>"Once upon a time there lived an old miser-man...."
>
>        Who's mad?
>
>JenniferD
>A Guitar          _________
>\---\____________/         \
> :::=====================I  |
>/---/            \_________/
>(Courier font)
>"I can't pretend there's any meaning here, and in the things I'm sayin'..."
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Jennifer L. Davies" <jen@nt.net>
>Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 23:10:00 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: who's the who
>
>Amira wrote:
>>In other words...John has always been a large part of the Who, but the Who 
>>never treated him fairly?  Well no WONDER he threatened to quit the band.
And 
>>that's probably why Moonie was always unsure about his position in the group 
>>as well, even though it's obvious his playing was at the core of the Who's 
>>sound.  It seems to me that Pete doesn't appreciate the rest of the 
>>band...like Roger once said, "He thinks he's the bleeding Who."
>
>        Very eloquently put.  (I didn't know Roger said that.  Normally he
>doesn't say stuff like that about Pete....  Was he sober? 8P)
>
>
>wf wrote:
>>John also drew the spiderwebs, etc... ...and was
>>very fussy about making sure that only ONE spider was on a web... :)
>
>        Of course!
>
>JenniferD
>A Guitar          _________
>\---\____________/         \
> :::=====================I  |
>/---/            \_________/
>(Courier font)
>"I can't pretend there's any meaning here, and in the things I'm sayin'..."
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Jennifer L. Davies" <jen@nt.net>
>Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 23:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: MuchMusic torture
>
>        Arrgh!  MuchMusic (in Canada) is having a Classic Rock weekend, and
>I've e-mailed them around 6 times to play a who video.
>        The problem is, I'm not gonna sit there and watch the Troopers while
>I pray they'll play some Who.  Instead, I'm listening.  Well, they keep
>using bits of the "Won't Get Fooled Again" video (the one with Pete's
>incredible leap) in the "Classic Rock Weekend" ads every 20 minutes, so I
>hear Roger's scream or the keyboard/drum solo and I go runnin'... only to
>see something else.
>
>JenniferD
>A Guitar          _________
>\---\____________/         \
> :::=====================I  |
>/---/            \_________/
>(Courier font)
>"I can't pretend there's any meaning here, and in the things I'm sayin'..."
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Jennifer L. Davies" <jen@nt.net>
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:06:02 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Quadrophenia sounds
>
>        Since Quad is the album *du moment*, I'll ask now.
>        Just after the line "I am a young man/I ain't done very much/You men
>should remember how you used to fight", there is a seal-like barking sound.
>        Does anyone know what (who?) the heck that is?
>
>JenniferD
>A Guitar          _________
>\---\____________/         \
> :::=====================I  |
>/---/            \_________/
>(Courier font)
>"I can't pretend there's any meaning here, and in the things I'm sayin'..."
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Ballou1@aol.com
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:31:12 -0400
>Subject: The Who live in LA
>
>Forgive me if this is old news, but as of this writing I haven't seen it
>posted yet. 
>
>KSCA FM 101.9 announced on Friday at approximately 5:00 P.M. that the Who
>will be performing Quadrophenia at the Forum on October 22.  Tix on sale on
>August 25.  They didn't mention additional dates but one would assume there
>will be some.
>
>I am personally disappointed in one respect since I will be out of town for a
>week beginning August 24th.  If there are other LA listers out there who will
>be pursuing tickets and would be willing to help me obtain some, could you
>please e-mail me privately? 
>
>Also, anyone with info on additional LA dates, please post ASAP.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Tim in sunny (sweltering!) LA
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: brendon@home.net (Brendon Macaraeg)
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:25:18 -0400
>Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #532
>
>From: TAPEBOY@aol.com
>Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 04:16:31 -0400
>Subject: Quad. Tour Date
>
>"The Who's Quadrophenia"  will be in Tacoma, Wa.  at the Tacoma Dome on Oct.
>14.    Tickets will go on sale next Saturday (Aug. 24th),  through Ticket
>Master.    Any other dates, anyone?    
>========
>
>Yup. According to today's (8/17) San Fran Chronicle, 
>the show will make a stop Oct. 19 and 20 at
>the San Jose Arena. $50 a pop. On sale Aug. 25th
>at Bass outlets (510)762-2277
>=====================================================
>Brendon Macaraeg
>http://www.itp.tsoa.nyu.edu/~brendonm 
>Finger macaragb@acf2.nyu.edu for my PGP Public Key
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: MCapriole@aol.com
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 11:04:10 -0400
>Subject: Re: TKAA
>
>In a message dated 96-08-17 21:05:39 EDT, you write:
>
> 
> I have the original videodisk of TKAA, and have always thought that the
>Circus
> sequence with "A Quick One" was one of the greatest archival treasures, as 
> well as an incredible performance.  Richards' intro was appropriately 
> fucked-up.  The BMG version must have cut the sequence to allow for the 
> tacked-on b&w video of TKAA at the end.  At least, that's the only reason
>that
> I can think of for cutting that sequence.
> 
> - - Chris  >>
>Does your original videodisk include Keith Richards? I don't have the BMG
>version of the film but I've seen it. My version is Thorn EMI and it doesn't
>have that tacked-on b&w video of TKAA at the end. Was anything else cut from
>the original? I recall seeing b&w stills from the original Quadrophenia tour
>with narration about what a flop the whole staging and sound was, but I think
>I may have seen that in another documentary.
>mc 
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: bugtuber@eden.com (Alan McKendree)
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 14:53:52 -0500
>Subject: Re: (No subject)
>
>>Amira (to Scott):
>>>You did the right thing.  Nobody here wants to read that shit.  Perhaps if
>>>Paul had laid down the law when intervention was needed on the other list
>>>some
>>>time ago, he wouldn't have had to resort to censoring posts and the
>>>digest-only format.
>
>Funny.  The way I remember it, Paul's _lack_ of intervention was roundly
>praised on all sides at the time and pointed to as the way a list should be
>run.  (The change to digest-only format was purely a function of list
>volume, which wouldn't have been changed by his intervention unless he
>actively limited posts or took other measures which I presume would have
>been widely criticized.)
>
>Yeah, Anthony was deliberately being an asshole, but it's certainly not the
>first time anyone's done that on thewho.  He just took off-topic posts to a
>logical extreme here to test a point, and got his answer, as did we all.
>As far as I know, Paul never prevented someone from posting anything or
>removed them from the list prior to the formal rules, which was done in the
>first 10 days of this list's existence.  I'm somewhat stunned at the
>general approval given the frequent recourse to the "free speech" aka "just
>hit D" defense on the old list.
>
>It looks to me like posting formal rules on the old list caused those who
>were opposed to formal rules in principle to seek an alternative.  The
>alternative may have been proposed and even conceived as a No Rules list
>but now the claim is that this list isn't an anarchy but a democracy.  I'm
>no proponent of anarchy myself, but I never claimed to be.  Nor am I a
>democrat -- democracies can vote by majority to do things I disagree with,
>such as boot someone off the list for reasons I may or may not find
>insufficient.  I prefer there to be rules, however liberally conceived and
>administered, from the outset -- which is still not the case on the new
>list.
>
>As far as I know, no one proposed modifying the rules Paul posted; instead
>of working with him to modify rules that were seen as too restrictive there
>was a stampede to the unfettered Valhalla of the new list, where we could
>all be FREE, FREE to post what we want
>(except-of-course-for-a-few-cases-to-be-determined- later).  Or
>alternatively, a place where "the members run the list" -- but 500 people
>don't sit at a keyboard or stay up late fixing the list, one (or at most
>two or three) does; and that person holds the keys.  If he turns off his
>own mind (which I do not advocate) and simply takes those actions requested
>by the majority of readers, we're back to case B) above, democracy.
>
>>>I think you should continue to handle these problems as
>>>you see fit,
>
>The "little at a time" instead of the "all at once" approach to rules.
>It's clear to me that the hosts and most list members who have expressed an
>opinion _do_ want rules, they just prefer them unwritten and administered
>on a case-by-case basis rather than written and explicit.  As I've said, I
>too prefer rules, but written ones -- but I'm apparently in the minority in
>this democracy.
>
>>>or else they might escalate to the point where people will be
>>>unsubscribing or complaining incessantly about the waste of bandwidth and
>>>you'll have a larger problem on your hands.
>
>Mailing lists always express the political and social convictions of the
>administrators.  In the absence of a readily available guidelines
>reference, a list must of necessity become anarchy under a detached
>administrator, or an "inner-circle" under an involved administrator -- even
>if the inner-circle is 300 people, and they jump on 1 outsider.  It was
>apparently "easy to see" that Anthony was not "one of us".  Hopefully no
>one of the 300 will suffer the same fate, but there's nothing to guarantee
>it except Scott's good intentions.
>
>Speaking of off-topic posts, if anyone would like to discuss rights,
>politics, ethics, etc., please e-mail me at amck@eden.com.
>
>Having said this, I'd also like to say that I'm glad thewho exists and
>thank all administrators, past and present, for their efforts in keeping it
>running.
>
>Long Live Rock,
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: carrothed <mpc@ican.ca>
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 22:48:58 -0400
>Subject: Mailing List
>
>I'm a big fan of the who and I'd like to join you're mailing list.
>
>Thank You,
>
>Adam Miller
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: LAVA22@aol.com
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 23:33:02 -0400
>Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #532
>
>tony levin is a fantastic bass player
>but john just happened to be in the
> greatest band in the world. if anyone doubts that needs to
>check out live at leeds not only the jams 
>but the arangement from young man to tattoo
>are amazing. pete's best guitar work are here
>i wish he would smash that acoustic he plays now
>and go back to the 69 gibson sg w/ hi watt amps and an echoplex that are on
>leeds.
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: LAVA22@aol.com
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 23:38:50 -0400
>Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #532
>
>john solo performance was an embarresment 
>from the metal drummer to the generic guitar
>player that played pete riffs like he was in
>a karoke taping session for who songs the but THE REAL ME was still
>amazing...
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #533
>******************************************
>
>To subscribe to The Who Mailing List, send the command:
>
>    subscribe thewho
>
>in the body of a message to majordomo@igtc.com
>
>Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.igtc.com in
>/pub/pmm/thewho.
>Hello
Where is everybody? I am very new to the net & I did not know that caps were
bad .....I am sorry. ... write me if you will - I do have some insight! I am
a major r-n-r er and I i am into the art!
>