Re: Talmy vs Astley; Carl Palmer; Astley vs Talmy

[Stuart Pittman <stoo@CAE.COM>]

Mark remarked:

>You mean like who can mix better than Astley and what an asshole he is?
>Pointless discussions like that?

In the grand scheme of things, this is all pretty pointless...

Supreme audio quality is not a major concern for me personally 
and the surrounding debates are something I'm only mildly  
interested in. However, as of late, the "bitching and whining" 
on this list about the "audiophile camp" is equivalent in volume 
to the re-mixing/mastering complaints of that "camp" themselves.
One can't deny that discussing the sound of a Who CD is a tad
more list-relevant than the origin of rock music or what some
neighbour said about The 'Oo.

Also, the past O&S moaning has not been directed solely towards
audio *quality*. Other bothersome and blunderous boners about the 
re-issue series are: missing guitar tracks, incorrect liner notes, 
etc. One would think these are legitimate issues of concern for
anyone Who-crazy enough to buy all their albums and religiously 
post to a Who mailing list. 

I have rarely, if ever, voiced my discontent on these forums about 
any the above re-issue gaffes so I don't feel under the gun. I just
don't understand the attitude displayed by some of .igtc's frequent 
posters. What is being seen is a criticism of Odds&Sods/audiophiles 
by the same crowd who belittle "casual Who fan" rock critics. This
is quite bizarre, wouldn't you say?

"...and everyone is upside-down",
Stoo