Re: Getting it all together

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>When you say "failure", which failure is that you are referring to? The only
>one I can really be certain of is the "failure" to please the die hard fans.
>Most of everyone else in the world doesn't give a <Picard> about any of this.
>MCA may make as much money on crap as they do gold. And, as for Pete's
>"strategy", I may not like or agree with some of the things he's done in his
>personal life, but he's doing a lot better off than you and I combined. 

I mean, obviously, that The Who has earned a better place and a higher
regard in Rock than they have...the reason for where they are being the way
their career has been handled and their material released. For instance, had
songs like Leaving Here and Here Tis (Etc.) been released in `65, the band
would have been considered in the same league as The Animals and
Yardbirds...and as the material got better (and it did), their status would
have risen accordingly. In Britian they WERE so regarded.
Instead we got legal battles and record labels that wouldn't release or
promote their music...and so on. The Who not being regarded as highly as The
Stones or Zepplin or The Doors is indeed a failure. Pete shares the blame as
well; many times he second-guessed the music to death.
So why, 20 years later, are we still having to deal with the same old
situation? People are supposed to learn from their mistakes.

>And lastly, the stuff released to-date may or may not meet up to our
>expectations. However, it's not a "failure"...

There have been (IMHO) only minor problems...and everyone else seems to see
it the same way (like the studio/live mixes on the boxed set). But if we can
fine tune even such things out, wouldn't that be better? Shouldn't we try?

              Cheers                        ML