RE: GeddyStu and Who the hell are you. (it just rhymes:)

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>]

>From: WanChef@aol.com
>Have some faith in the future Kevin. <snip> Brittney Spears will get 
>hormone probs one day too Kevin, ok. Have faith.
>wanchef

I thought I *was* having faith in the future.
It's the present I find so utterly pathetic.

>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
>Subject: A Styx-free zone
>Just wondering if Stu made it to that infamous Capitol Center show the KBFH
>Quad came from.

Man, poor Stu is having a hell of a time getting posts through.  He stayed
up late the other night to construct a long post on the Who vs. Rush, and I
notice it didn't get through.  He's also getting the digest delivered 3x.
He's bummin'.

Regarding Geddy L.  I spoke with Stu about him.  Stu, being an accomplished
bassist, and keyboardist, and even singer, kind of took me to task for
"busting" on Geddy.  To him, John is #1, but he has the utmost respect for
what Geddy does.  He said something like "I've sat and tried to copy what
Geddy was doing on bass, and couldn't.  Add to that the fact that the guy
was singing at the same time......"
So, I may have been a bit harsh.  But, I thought that's what Schrade likes!
;-)
BTW, we're in agreement on Alex though.

>From: "andrew wiechman" <Jovar1701v@email.msn.com>
>
>P.S. Oh By the way If you guys are into picking on other bands Why dont you
>pick on selfish self serving decadent , completely unintellectual bands
like
>Metallica, and Limp Bizkit.
>Trust me there are many other bands who deserve your criticism more than
>these canadian rockers do.
>drew w

Good point.  But, I kind of see it as a compliment to even try and do a
comparison.  Those other bands you mention aren't even worth our energy.
For what it's worth, I do consider myself a Rush fan, until shortly after
Moving Pictures.

> I can see this point, I really can.  BUT, I'd rather see them play 
> at the
> Grammy's after the huge success of their new album.  :-)
> BUT (again), at the same time, I'm scared to death of it.
> It's a scary thing to put yourself "out there" when at the same time 
> you're
> protecting a legacy.
> When they go "live-public" like performing at The Grammy's, I'd 
> rather see
> them as "the conquering hero's".  This is what's needed to distance
> themselves from the "bubble gum".
> I don't want the world to see them as a "nostalgia act" which 
> playing this
> year surely would occur.

I don't get how this post of mine didn't get to the list, and showed up as a
reply from Jeff.
I must of F'd up somewhere.
Yes Jess, I know, what else is new.

>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: to Grammy or not to Grammy?
>
>Yeah, all that, and also it would set a bad precedent.  All you have to do 
>to get The Who to perform at your function is give them an award?  I don't 
>think so.  ;)
>keets

Amen my brotha!
As Stu put it, "as long as the man is writing, leave him alone!"

>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
>
>I think they evolved independently, 

That's always been my "impression".  What I don't get, is how someone like
me, who was into The DK, Government Issue, The Pistols, Suicidal Tendencies,
B52's, Devo, and the entire local Punk movement, missed the Ramones until
the mid 80's ????  Who's wine, what wine, where the hell did I dine?
Am I alone there?  Starting to doubt my knowledge of music.  Were they just
so far underground that I wasn't exposed until later?

>It's easy to see Punk from the early Who, from MG but more easily from AAA
>which is Punk if nothing else in the era is!
>               Cheers                 ML

I keep forgetting about AAA.  Clearly a taste of things to come.

Stay in Tune,
COME ON STU, WE KNOW YOU CAN GET IT SORTED OUT! :-)

Kevin in VT