Re: Pete's guitar playing in 79 & 82

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>Mark, re:
>
>>I certainly prefer the RCMH version to the one released on JT. Which is what
>my argument is all about. 
>
>Not really, your argument was about "a complete show", not necessarily a
>"better" show. For example, had they done JT as the "complete" LA
>Amphitheater show, it would have met your criteria, yet it still wouldn't
>have been as good as Radio City.

WF:
I think that we can assume that they would use a good as well as complete
show. The LA show was atypical, with all of the guests.

>>Disc two was from many shows, and so that makes my argument rather than
>>undermines it. 
>
>Not at all. Had all the performances, mixes and songs been good, I think you
>and everyone else would have been happy. On disc 2, I'm happy with "Trick Of
>The Light", does that mean, I would have been happier, if all the other songs
>on that disc came from the same show? For all we know, Roger couldn't sing
>that night! And... what if they did the same song selection and performed
>them exactly the same way? How would "the same concert" have made them
>better???

Yeah, I like Trick too. Great to get that. Too bad that the rest doesn't
measure up. As I said before, we're not working in a vaccuum here. They
would use a strong performance from a single show...which would be better
than bits and pieces from many shows, no matter how strong individually.

>I like two songs from that concert: "It's Hard" and
>"Eminence Front" (my favorite live version). That's about it, sad to say...
>You can't compare that version of "Young Man Blues" to "Leeds"...

Uh...yes, I think the guitar playing is more accomplished on Toronto than it
is on LEEDS. While not as powerful as the LAL version, it is interesting to
have a version where Townshend is stretching out.

>>I can say this: the band recorded their performances from `68 on. There is
>>a complete library of the TOMMY tour(s), and The Who have (or at least had)
>>it. I have no doubt that they have plenty of material to chose from. 

>You'd be surprised what's left. Remember, even the master tapes for "Tommy"
>were burned up by Kit Lambert.

So where did Mobile Fidelity get them from not so many years ago?

>And... if you read your Who history books, you'll recall that they recorded
>"Leeds" after being frustrated by listening to the tapes from the American
>tour that year and they "burned them all"... 

As I recall, the great tape burning came after the `68 tour. Not the TOMMY
tour, which lasted two years and was worldwide. And where they recorded all
of the shows. Losses and so on...there still must be a lot left. Didn't
Charlesworth say that we "hadn't heard the best TOMMY live yet?" He must
have some choices, in that case.
We also know that they recorded the `71 tour, as they planned to release
another live album (from which we've gotten Baby Don't You Do It, Bargain,
Going Down, and My Wife from so far) but decided that it sounded "too much
like LEEDS." 

>How? Things got lost, thrown out, given away, etc over the years. Nobody was
>minding the store. Personally, I don't want a "live" performance from a TV
>broadcast. We got some of that on "The Kids Are Alright" and it sounds like
><Picard>! As for "buying rights", the fans know where more of this stuff is
>"hidden", then they do in some cases.

In the case of a TV performance, coming early on in their career, it would
sound better than a remote live recording. We know from The Beatles'
ANTHOLOGY that the songs can sound pretty good. All of these shows must pay
royalties to The Who Group, so there are records of each and every one.

>CDs cost less than $2 each in quantity. So? What about royalties? Marketing?
>The people in the studio remastering them? Everyone in the <Riker> world that
>has a "piece of the action"??? It's nowhere near that simple. And then of
>course, you have the artists, who say, "I don't like that performance." And
>then they can it. All I can tell you about my recent involvements is this,
>NONE of it is "easy"... 

Two dollars??? Who told you that? 50 cents would be closer to the mark, and
even then I'm talking about a small operation. It's got to be even less for
a major label.  Royalties come according to sales, so they aren't a factor
as a "cost." Which is also the case for the people who have a "piece of the
action." The remaster/remixing costs are minimal compared to the cost of
recording a new album. How much marketing have they done for the remixes so
far? Not much...

>Unfortunately, you may have to wait a bit longer. I should have a revised
>tour schedule on Monday, but right now, the 31st of March doesn't look so
>hot. Hopefully, that will get straightened out...

That's just great. We had a hard enough time coming up with a definite date
for Whofest, and now it's once again subject to change. I did check the site
for the tour dates, but they didn't go that far into March. Who knows, the
House Of Blues might be finished by then and he can play there.

>BTW, for the record, I wish they had tapes of every studio & live performance
>they ever did. Unfortunately, that wish ain't gonna happen...

I think they have more than you think they do. With access to more, if they
would just do a bit of research. Most (if not all) of the stuff we would
want IS available to them in some form or another. The only great loss is
the `68 tour, and they can still work from Fillmore East `68 and make it
sound great.

>wf <~ who didn't get the new "Oklahoma '68" tonight, but now hopes to 
>          "snag" it tomorrow afternoon...

Good luck, and I'll be looking for it today myself...hoping it will get down
here this fast.

            Cheers                   ML