[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V6 #16
Over-rated??? Queen, deffo (Hi to the woman from Philly at the Pete
Townshend gig at Shepherds Bush, who agreed that the taped Queen racket,
being played before PT took the stage, was just NOT ON, Led Zep (at
least from Four Symbols onwards), REM (Monster? Nein danke!), The Stones
(from "Exile" onwards), Elton John ("Your Song" - smashing, "Candle 96"
aaaaaagghhh), Ultravox, and (tragically) His Itinerant Bobness, the Zim
("Street Legal" onwards - maybe excepting "Oh Mercy"), Portishead, and
most recently, Roni Size/Raprezent... that's my two penn'orth.
>From thewho-digest-owner@igtc.com Mon Jan 18 09:30:42 1999
>Received: (from pmm@localhost)
> by igtc.igtc.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id IAA00418
> for TheWho-Digest-Outgoing-Proc@igtc.com; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:53:01
-0800 (PST)
>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:53:01 -0800 (PST)
>Message-Id: <199901181653.IAA00418@igtc.igtc.com>
>X-Authentication-Warning: igtc.igtc.com: pmm set sender to
TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com using -f
>From: TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com (The Who Mailing List Digest)
>To: TheWho-Digest@igtc.com
>Subject: The Who Mailing List Digest V6 #16
>Reply-To: TheWho@igtc.com
>Sender: TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com
>Errors-To: TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com
>Precedence:
>
>
>The Who Mailing List Digest
> Monday, January 18 1999 Volume 06 : Number 016
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
> Re: Tommy in New York City
> Fwd: Re: MOJO with Keith
> Hey I'm new
> Eeeek! Look at that!
> Re: Overated
> Re: Overated
> Re: Overated
> Re: Overated
> Re: Overated
> Pearl jam covering the who
> Re: Overated
> UNDER-RATED/OVER-RATED
> taboo subjects
> overated/overatted
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:34:38 -0400
>From: Jason Hare <hare@acsu.buffalo.edu>
>Subject: Re: Tommy in New York City
>
>>Aw shit, now I have to refund YOUR ticket!
>
>Nahh, it's okay, I still enjoyed it :-)
>
>>Actually, I'm surprised that
>>the Quads you've seen haven't callused your eardrums to the point
where
>>volume headaches would be a thing of the past.
>
>Are you KIDDING? Quad wasn't nearly loud ENOUGH! Quad was many
things,
>but it was never a "split-your-eardrums" concert...not for me, anyway.
>
>>Can I see your Whofan ID card again, please, sir?
>
>NOW I'm offended. (took this long, too!)
>
>Jay
>
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> ****** Jason Hare :-) ******
> <hare@acsu.buffalo.edu>
> http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~hare
> Wen yu fre fal, fynd iff heven waitz. - David Ives
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:49:11 PST
>From: "Jeremy Craine" <jcraine@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Fwd: Re: MOJO with Keith
>
>Regarding the Keith edition of MOJO,I did buy it - basically it's a
>synopsis of the Keith biography ("Dear Boy") with great photos - well
>worth getting..
>and Mojo is a great mag!it tends to concentrate on the great rock bands
>rather than todays chart topping trash....
>
>
>>
>> Hello All, I recently was looking at the latest British Music Mags
in
>my
>>local Tower Store. British Music Mags are so juicy, full of so much
>info - not
>>so much Advertisting. Well, I saw in the back issues- about 2 months
>ago -
>>Keith on the cover of this Mag called MOJO. Did anyone out there get
>this? I
>>am going to order it- it will take a while for me to get it, so I
>thought I
>>would ask if anyone saw this mag & bought it. This mags are around
>$7.50 each.
>> Take care all, Janice
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:40:41 -0800 (PST)
>From: Jon McCormack <pearljam_04079@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Hey I'm new
>
>Hey I'm new to the list and just wanted to say hi,
>I'm a 16 male from Maine (usa) and I joined this list to meet who fans
>and learn more about one of my favorite bands
>
>Well thanks
>
>Music sets the sick ones free
>Jon
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:43:04 -0600
>From: Cheryl Posner-Weber <otter@execpc.com>
>Subject: Eeeek! Look at that!
>
>Those of you with access to today's (Sunday's) "Wisconsin State
Journal"
>might want to check the book section, as the review of Tony Fletcher's
>book, "MOON: The Life and Death of a Rock Legend" published today is
>one I submitted to the paper a few weeks ago. (In truth, my original
>review was much longer and praised the biography in more detail, but
>what the hell! Keith's in the paper again!)
>
>I had no idea the article would be published, so my first thought was,
>"Gosh, they chose someone else's review!"
>
>Anyway, if you weren't able to track down a copy of "Dear Boy" (the
>original U.K. edition), I recommend the U.S. edition highly, as the
only
>major differences are in the title and the book design.
>
>- --Cheryl
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:25:49 EST
>From: Gomper5@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Overated
>
>i personally think the grateful dead is the most overrated band
>
>=andrew
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:39:28 -0600
>From: "Rene Bos" <renebos@prodigy.net>
>Subject: Re: Overated
>
>>i personally think the grateful dead is the most overrated band
>>
>>=andrew
>
>Overated?? Not in Europe!
>There they are as unknown as they should be!
>
>Howdy, Rene
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:45:12 -0500
>From: "IMONE" <IMONE@prodigy.net>
>Subject: Re: Overated
>
>My overrated award would have to go to Billy Joel.
>- -Imone
>
>>i personally think the grateful dead is the most overrated band
>>=andrew
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:04:03 -0600
>From: "Rene Bos" <renebos@prodigy.net>
>Subject: Re: Overated
>
>How about U2 ! and REM !! Not that I dislike them so much, but don't
>understand why many people with a decent taste think so very highly of
them.
>Hugely overrated imo.
>
>Most underrated: The Who. I'm serious.
>Rene.
>
>>My overrated award would have to go to Billy Joel.
>>-Imone
>>
>>>i personally think the grateful dead is the most overrated band
>>>=andrew
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:29:45 EST
>From: Dover87@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Overated
>
>i think that the most overatted band is led zepplin
>
>underated: the who, jefferson airplane
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 18:51:36 -0800 (PST)
>From: Jon McCormack <pearljam_04079@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Pearl jam covering the who
>
>I've heard them cover Baba and Eddie vedder sand with Mr. Townshend
>and I think they do a very good job covering the best band
>ever...better then some other bands I've heard try..any 1 else think
>so???
>
>
>Jon
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:32:58 -0800
>From: Joseph <joseph9@home.com>
>Subject: Re: Overated
>
>Dover87@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> i think that the most overatted band is led zepplin
>
>
>
> Led Zeppelin is NOT overrated in my opinion. Just last night a buddy
>of mine played the whole Physical Graffiti two times in a row. I had
>forgotten what a gem that CD is.
>
>
>
>>
>> underated: the who, jefferson airplane
>
>
>
>
> AGREED!
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:50:03 PST
>From: "Jeremy Craine" <jcraine@hotmail.com>
>Subject: UNDER-RATED/OVER-RATED
>
>For me the under rated bands are The Who,Queen and the Kinks....
>
>OverRated is a grey area....people can take different things from the
>music.....
>although the one thing that bugs me at the moment is the phenomenal
>success of trashy acts which are purely marketed for kids..
>(Spiice Girls,backstreet boys etc....)
>
>but while we're on the subject,REM are good,but not THAT good...ditto
>for Aerosmith..
>
>I'm Kent Brockman and thats my two cents...
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:02:41 EST
>From: Kentthe1@aol.com
>Subject: taboo subjects
>
>I'm the one who started the new Pete sexuality strains again, and guess
what?
>I'll do it again. I'm interested in this subject and I know there are
people
>on this list who can help me out with information that I might not be
privy
>to. So all of you in the politically correct "it's irrelevant crowd" -
you're
>just going to have to suffer through it.
>
>On a different note: has anyone noticed a different mix of Naked Eye on
the
>new O&S? It's got a few additional slide-like guitar licks in it on my
>version.
>
>Kentavo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:30:13 +0000
>From: sunnysideroad@sermon.demon.co.uk (sermon)
>Subject: overated/overatted
>
>I agree with Dover87 that Led Zepplin are overatted. Never have so many
>people ratted on those guys. Whereas Led Zeppelin may be overated, but
we
>don't know what that means.
>What I suspect is meant is that they are overrated, and this is simply
not
>true.They are great. Mind you, they did steal a lot of old blues songs
and
>collect the publishing money without crediting the writers. Now our
Pete
>never did that.
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of The Who Mailing List Digest V6 #16
>*****************************************
>
>To unsubscribe to The Who Mailing List, send mail to majordomo@igtc.com
with
>the following in the body of the message:
>
> unsubscribe thewho-digest
>
>Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.igtc.com in
>/pub/pmm/thewho.
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com