Re: Getting it all together

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>Pete Townshend didn't have "four a year" worth of material to
>crank out. Where was this magical material supposed to come from? Don't blame
>the record company for that!

WF:
Speaking of contridictions, "Pete was writing all kinds of material..." you
said.

>Kit Lambert managed AND produced the band up to "Who's Next". Look at the
>labels on your favorite "oldies"... The Who were no big deal in the 60's
>until "Tommy". What makes you think anyone really cared?

The Who were very big in Britian and Europe, so certainly somebody cared. I
know of Lambert's production history...of course. Look at things from a
world view, not a American view.

>>That isn't out of line with the music of the time. (re "Sell Out's" poor
>drum, etc. recording)
>
>Really? That kinda contradicts your earlier statements. The Beatles were
>recorded far more better than The Who during the same period...

Read them again. I said that only SO came close.

>Again, you don't know your Who history. As an example, read the original
>liner notes for "Odds & Sods". As for the "label", "Track Records" (The Who's
>label) was owned by Lambert and Stamp (The Who's management). Polydor & Decca
>couldn't release material they didn't have in their possession, or are you
>aware of certain levitation techniques that we don't know about?

Track Records was distributed by Polydor/Decca, and of course they had
access to the tapes. You really have no idea how things were back then. A
band with more power MIGHT have been able to keep recording sessions away
from the label. Maybe. But as long as the label was paying for those
sessions (and they were)...

>Again, facts all mixed up. It was Pete, not the label that made "Who's Next"
>into a single. 

Look again. That's not the way it was. Pete had washed his hands of it at
that point.

>hMMM... my "Who history" tells me reached 4 on the charts (perhaps one of our
>chartmeisters can confirm this #--How do you define, "complete commercial
>failure"???) On the other hand, the stage performance of the same got royally
>screwed up due to the band's inability to perform well with the "backing
>tapes"...

The buying public didn't buy QUAD in droves. The critics trashed it. The
single didn't make it into the top 40. If it did make it to # 4, it didn't
stay there long. It was considered a failure, coming after WN.

>>It's very easy to sit at your desk and say, they should have done this and
>>they should have done that 20 or 30 years ago. 
>
>>>But isn't that what YOU are doing, and have been doing? What, I can't
>discuss it now? Does it matter that I felt the same at the time? I guess
>not...
>
>No, that's not what "I'm doing". The band did what the band did. Period.
>There's no going back in the "time machine" to fix the problems of history. I
>don't sit here and moan of "The Ghost Of Who Past", but all of my replies to
>you are responses to just that. It's very easy to say, "...they should have
>done this and should have done that..." Nobody will ever know, will they?
>Perhaps if they reached success earlier, they would have broken up sooner.

You know, I love the way you twist the argument. I never said anything about
changing their past. Thus far, I have done no more than meet your arguments.
You have led the conversation to this place, so don't turn and say that
"You're trying to change their past." Nope. I have pointed out some of the
things that have kept them from where they deserve to be, that's it. I
speculated. You asked me to speculate, in fact. You've done the same, from
time to time, so don't jump me for doing it. THAT is an "honest perception"
of our differences.

>You want to make people your way. I want to help them do their jobs better.

No, I simply think that C&J should monitor the Digest. Not MY way, at all. I
want all of us to have a "vote."

>I'm willing to continue this "discussion" with you, but I'm afraid that we're
>turning off "the masses".

Fine. EMail me your response (if any) to this post.

                 Cheers                      ML