[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The Who Mailing List Digest V8 #303
Hi,
Having just skimmed through digest V8#303 I was interested to see debate
regarding Led Zeppelin and The Who. Some interesting obseravations, a
couple of historical inaccuracies (whiche were corrected later by other
contributors) and some very outspoken opinions and I thought that I'd just
share with you all three live concert experiences (I've no points to prove
as these are just my opinions and feelings).
1974 - The Who at Charlton FC - A tremendously hot day, a rammed football
ground and some blistering performances with, IMHO, Humble Pie giving a
magnificent Who a real run for their money! Stevie Marriott's voice was
outstanding and the way the band seemed to "attack" from the get-go has
really stuck in my memory. The Who pulled out all the stops, delivered a
set that had my hair standing on end and my (then) girlfriend virtually
wetting herself watching Daltery cavort around the stage. And then they
switched 6 - 8 "super trooper" searchlights / landing lights on from the
stands facing the stage and the effect was electrifying with 60,000+ punters
cheering their heads off, truly outstanding!!
1975 - Led Zeppeling @ Earls Court - After much anticipation and hype Led
Zeppelin bring to the UK their "American" show. In other words we are
treated to spectacular lighting / lasers and video screens (I think!). I'm
completely off my tits as I'd discovered early on that for me Led Zep are /
were an excellent band to watch after swallowing a couple of tabs of acid.
The show begins, Zep, begin and the marathon starts to unwind. New songs,
old songs flash past in displays of brilliance and technical virtuosity that
is rare to find (either then or now), Plant wails and struts, Page lopes
around with his guitar slung from his waist and black curls falling, Jones
stand still throbbing with his bass and Bonham is Bonham - brash, crude,
ugly, powerful! The main difference between them and the Who - Led Zep
insisted on playing a lengthy set (around 3hrs) BUT instead of it being
packed full of killer punches they wish to indulge their "brilliance" so we
get No Quarter for fifteen minutes too many, Moby Dick is wheeled out and I
head to the bar and toilets for at least another twenty minutes! All in all
the lasers are great, Zeppelin ROCK when they're in top gear BUT they allow
their indulgences to weaken an otherwise great idea and set!
1976 - The Who @ Charlton - Unlike '74 the weather is shitty and rains off
and on for most of the day. The other acts are all "workman like",
unfortunately the brilliance of Little Feats doesn't shine through
mid-afternoon on a rainy English day in May! The Sensational Alex Harvey
Band amuse and entertain and where I'm seated (towards the front to the
right of stage as you face it) fights keep breaking out as the venue is
rammed to a frightening capacity due to gate crashers / counterfoil tickets.
By the time that The Who take the stage everyone, including them, is ready
for action and after mopping the stage down that's what Daltrey, Townshend,
Entwhistle and Moon proceed to do. The high points of that show are still
too many to recount, but when the effects of lasers, mirrors and
searchlights come on during the See Me, Feel Me finale I know that I've just
witnessed, for me, the ultimate WHO performance. And, unlike Zeppelin,
there's no extra flannel or farting around as the set is just a constant
stream of perfect songs with pretty stunning playing and all delivered in a
series of killer punches and it's over and done with within two and half
hours and any solo are restricted a few minutes of fancy fret or sticks
work!!
So, there you all are. It maybe of interest, it may not be and I don't
believe that I'm trying to make or prove any point. But, I do know for me
that no matter HOW good Led Zeppelin are / were they just don't QUITE make
it to the same level as THE WHO (regardless of the line-up / drummer).
NIGEL MORTON
Moneypenny,
The Stables, Westwood House,
Main Street, North Dalton,
Driffield, East Yorkshire,
YO25 9XA
Te: +44(0)1377-217815 / 217662
Fax: + 44(0)1377-217754
Mobile: + 44(0)7977-455882
e mail: nigel@adastey.demon.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com [mailto:TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com]
Sent: 06 November 2001 21:53
To: TheWho-Digest@igtc.com
Subject: The Who Mailing List Digest V8 #303
The Who Mailing List Digest
Tuesday, November 6 2001 Volume 08 : Number 303
In this issue:
Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V8 #302
Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
RE: Review of New Jersey Quadrophenia
Quad on Broad & Gods Of Many Genres
Re: rock gods
RE: Review of New Jersey Quadrophenia
Re: rock gods
Re: Who blues
Re: Who blues
Zep vs Who live
who in tv guide
re-Zep V Who Live
Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
Re: Zeppelin and the Song Remains the Same
Re: Zeppelin and the Song Remains the Same
rock gods
RE: Copy-Cat and a Cigar
5 year old audiophile
It's Scoop 3 :-)
Re: It's Scoop 3 :-)
Re: rock gods
Who Uncut
More info on Lifehouse Concert DVD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:38:23 -0500
From: "andrew wiechman" <Jovar1701v@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V8 #302
Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
Dave wrote:
Sorry but I can think of a few fims that would make TKAA "boring".
Dave...
I assume you meant films, And if you do know of some WHO films that would
make TKAA "boring" Please type them here i want to watch them!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:46:58 -0500
From: "hare@optonline.net" <hare@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
>>Sorry but I can think of a few fims that would make TKAA "boring".
Dave...>>
You just can't help yourself, can you. Gotta tease the masses. :-)
Jason
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:50:57 -0500
From: "hare@optonline.net" <hare@optonline.net>
Subject: RE: Review of New Jersey Quadrophenia
>>Like seeing a car crash on the highway, I stayed and watched the
carnage.>>
I was kicking myself for missing the audition (wound up performing in Two
Gentlemen of Verona instead). Now I don't feel so bad.
>>How on earth did this get okayed by Townshend and Eel Pie, who is
credited in the program?>>
Because good or bad, as of now, it's one of the only theatrical
interpretations of Quadrophenia, and it's publicity.
Jason
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:58:10 -0500
From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
Subject: Quad on Broad & Gods Of Many Genres
> Like seeing a car crash on the highway, I stayed and watched the
> carnage.
Brian:
Ah, who didn't see this one coming? I told you (not specifically YOU but you
as all on this list), Quad is just NOT Broadway material.
> All three interminable acts of it. I think this might well have been
> the worst two-and-three-quarter hours I have ever spent in a theater.
He didn't see Yes on their 1974 tour. Or the movie Dungeons And Dragons.
Or...
> Don't have the band use electronic drums turned down low.
Keith Moon is spinning in his grave. I just know he is.
> How on earth did this get okayed by Townshend and Eel Pie, who is
> credited in the program?
Hmmm...this is the same guy who supervised the remix of the Tommy part of
LALD...suddenly I'm not as excited about an album of new material after
all...
> Sinatra, Elvis, Morrison, Jerry Lee and Muddy all did it before Roger.
Jeff:
Your timeline and parameters are a bit skewed; Morrison (I ASSUME you mean
Jim not Van, who is certainly no God but merely a great performer) came 3
years after The Who, Jerry Lee is no God but a wacky drunken redneck white
Little Richard, and the others are not Rock anything. Blues, Jazz...but not
Rock.
> Honorable mentions should also go to Iggy, Bowie, Janis, Jimi,
All after Rog.
> James Brown, Aretha, Tina...
All R&B, not Rock.
I don't know what to say about Steve Tyler, except he's a poor man's Jagger.
And therefore a jester not a god?
> Led Zeppelin was Cream/Hendrix Experience + Daltrey. That's all.
Zep was Page's Who walk-on fantasy.
> An then there's Son House and Robert Johnson!!
AEB:
Neither qualify in the least! Neither was a huge stage persona, which is a
given for a Rock God. Forget that neither were Rock either!
> Oh Well, I'm off to Stovall's Plantation in Mississippi to pick blues
licks
> and cotton with Son House, Willie Brown and Muddy.
I think you should. Get a little perspective. I love Muddy Waters but he's
no Rock anything, he's a BLUES GOD!
Now, if you want a Rock God to discuss...Eric Burdon. Or Ozzy, albeit a God
of the Underworld.
> Don't forget T-Bone Walker.
Jeff:
You do understand the difference between Blues and Rock, don't you?
> Well actually, yes. :-)
Jon:
Me too; Quad is too good not to watch.
> Assuming this "Hey Joe" is the same cut that is on ML's 'Stages', it is
good
> for a listen or two.
Jeff:
That particular Hey Joe is from the Radio City Music Hall performance of
6/27/89, although they did it several times during that tour (I know they
did it in Raleigh, NC).
> IMHO it is some pretty shitty blues. Antiseptic.
It wasn't really a Blues song; many people recorded it during the `60's, the
most standout versions being by The Byrds, The Seeds and Jimi Hendrix. The
former two are fast Rock versions, Hendrix's was slow and grinding. Bluesy
but not Blues. The Who played that version to honor Hendrix, as he started
on their Track label. Its inclusion on Stages was more for the fact that
it's unique and officially unreleased rather than being a stellar
performance. Like (also on Stages) Born On The Bayou (Dallas 9/3/89), which
is cool because it's The Who doing it but not exactly their finest moment.
And nowhere near as good as the Creedence version.
"God may have mercy on you, but we won't."
Senator John McCain
Cheers ML
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:04:06 EST
From: TJLY99@aol.com
Subject: Re: rock gods
did sinatra, elvis, Jerry Lee, and muddy waters bare their chest and have
big
hair? no. if they did, it would look rediculous. Jim morrison came out
around the same time roger did so i'm not saying anything about him.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:04:56 -0800 (PST)
From: thewho rocks <leb905@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Review of New Jersey Quadrophenia
> >>How on earth did this get okayed by Townshend and Eel Pie, who is
> credited in the program?>>
>
> Because good or bad, as of now, it's one of the only theatrical
> interpretations of Quadrophenia, and it's publicity.
Also, maybe an experiment in how NOT to do the official PT production.
LB
=====
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste
good with ketchup.
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 00:05:54 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: rock gods
>Sinatra, Elvis, Morrison, Jerry Lee and Muddy all did it before Roger.
>Honorable mentions should also go to Iggy, Bowie, Janis, Jimi, James Brown,
>Aretha, Tina...Led Zeppelin was Cream/Hendrix Experience + Daltrey. That's
>all.
Hmmm. As Mark has pointed out, some of these folks aren't generally
associated with the rock genre. I guess I need to clarify what I'm thinking
about. There are a couple of levels of rock demigods. I think if I asked
for THE GODS OF ROCK AND ROLL that most folks here could agree on a list.
Some musicians are hard to classify, so I'd expect a little argument, but
not that much. Who are they?
Definite pantheon (a.k.a. died before they got old):
John Lennon
Jimi Hendrix
Jim Morrison
Janis Joplin
Keith Moon? (died a little late for this group)
Elvis? (not quite rock?)
In unless they screw up really bad:
Pete Townshend
Roger Daltrey
John Entwistle (since that Bassist of the Millenniuum vote)
Jimmy Page
Robert Plant
Mick Jagger
Paul McCartney? (too pop?)
Eric Clapton? (too blues?)
Of course, there's also a second layer pantheon where lesser known deities
would fit in, but I think this includes all the heavy hitters. Anybody
disagree? Anybody I need to add?
These folks are well-known for the big rock genesis that took place in the
sixties and early seventies, and they set the stage in various ways for what
came after. One of the notable trends was what John called the "cock
rockers" that played hard rock aimed heavily at a male audience through the
seventies and eighties. This is the sub-genre of rock demi-gods that I
think may have been built from Roger's on-stage persona.
As Pete has said, The Beatles were packaged for a female audience, but Kit
Lambert found a way to market The Who to a male audience instead--so much so
that they wondered where the women were. The volume and syle of the music
were one part of it, but interestingly, a bare-chested Cockney was the other
part. As Lew has pointed out, Daltrey became the idol of a generation of
young men.
keets
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 00:39:47 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Who blues
>"That Bolton guy (or whatever his name is) who plays guitar is just
>plain boring."
>
>OK. It is the same recording I've heard before. I wrongly ASSumed Pete
>was not playing guitar. It still sucks.
Ah, it's too bad we have such different taste. I love that huge sound.
Obviously Roger does, too, as you can see how he reacts when they start up
with it.
I can't really hear Bolton, though I guess he's in there somewhere. Roger
starts off playing a blues lead, and then John picks it up. Rabbit is front
and center with the organ for a while, and Pete comes in later with the
Hendrix solo stuff. This is an example of Roger using his voice as an
instrument--all you hear is the sound and hardly any words at all. Gorgeous
stuff.
keets
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 03:12:43 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Who blues
>>OK. It is the same recording I've heard before. I wrongly ASSumed Pete
>>was not playing guitar. It still sucks.
Tsk, tsk. Just listened to this again without the video, and I don't know
how you mistook that for Steve Bolton. The deconstruction three quarters
through has got Pete written all over it. Tonight I'm in love with
Entwistle, though. ;)
keets
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 23:07:56 EST
From: Sroundtable@aol.com
Subject: Zep vs Who live
The fact that Zepp was no longer on the cutting edge by 1972 shouldn't have
affected their live act. For god's sake- it was a movie! I suppose they
were very good live- I was enjoying it, but nowhere near touching stuff the
Who did. I was absolutely mesmerized when i watched the IOW video the first
time- couldn't stop watching. For that matter, i keep replaying the CFNYC
over and over. still can't believe i was there (damn, I'm good. A mention
in a post about zeppelin). i am absolutely NOT a zep basher- but all i
could
think of when watching song remains is how much it seemed like the who.
maybe it was because they showed plant so much and he was so obviously doing
daltrey and that clouded my judgement. PT stomps all over Page with
everything considered.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 23:18:35 EST
From: Pilam76@aol.com
Subject: who in tv guide
In the new issue of TV Guide with Michael Jackson on the cover///go to page
9
where they have the cheers and jeers section and it has a picture of the who
at the CFNY and most of the article talks about the concert in general but
in
the end the last paragraph says and i quote "But anything could be forgiven
once the who hit the stage. Offering more proof that Britain is our best
ally, Roger daltrey, pete townshend and john entwistle performed a
blistering
set. No offense to mick,keith and sirs elton and paul, but WGFA was the
sonic
boom we needed///
- -scott
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 04:27:30
From: "Derick Bhupsingh" <circles01@hotmail.com>
Subject: re-Zep V Who Live
Kevin, There's no such category. Zep made good records and all
that, but LIVE ? Theydon't even come anywhere close! Nobody does plain
and simple, pure and easy !Regards,Derick.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 19:42:35 -0800
From: Dave <dave@thewho.net>
Subject: Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
Well I have to admit it's not exactly easy having something you can't
show anyone,
something that was filmed 30 years ago ;-)
Bruce can tell you about that ;-)
Dave...
- --
- -------------------------->
http://www.quadrophenia.net
<--------------------------
Dave...>>
You just can't help yourself, can you. Gotta tease the masses. :-)
Jason
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 19:44:55 -0800
From: Dave <dave@thewho.net>
Subject: Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
Interesting? so if I typed a bunch of shows here you could actually
watch them?
I never knew such technology existed! ;-)
Really come on now who do you take me for? someone who collects rare Who
film...
Gee...thats Bruce Kawakami's job ;-)
Dave...
- --
- -------------------------->
http://www.quadrophenia.net
<--------------------------
I assume you meant films, And if you do know of some WHO films that
would
make TKAA "boring" Please type them here i want to watch them!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 07:22:29 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lifehouse Concert on DVD Nov. 22
Private parties, Dave. Just make sure nobody switches the tape on you.
;)
keets
>Well I have to admit it's not exactly easy having something you can't
>show anyone, something that was filmed 30 years ago ;-)
>You just can't help yourself, can you. Gotta tease the masses. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 22:55:55 +0000
From: John Hughes <john@pureneasy.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Zeppelin and the Song Remains the Same
Lela, re
> > leavening the mix with an oddball singer with astounding stage
> > presence, Plant, who may well have copied the look of Daltrey but
> > who invented the concept of the cock rock singer
>
> The Daltrey-Plant resemblence is the connection here. Their Behind
> The Music episode on VH1 says they actually went in search of a
> Daltrey look-alike, and that the similar curly blond hair and
> open-chested costumes were no accident. If it's stated publicly,
> you'd figure there's truth in it, or else they'd complain.
Before I refute your argument, can I ask did you believe Nixon, or
Clinton?
Just because they said they didn't do it, didn't mean they were being
truthful, did it?
Page, or Peter Grant did NOT look for a Daltrey lookalike to front his
Page's nascent band. Stevie Marriott at the time looked like a drug
wasted midget compared to Daltrey, and I suggest again you to check out
the cover of "Bang bang you're Terry Reid" to see what he looked like; a
spotty, scrawny, little boy.
The facts are quite simple. Led Zeppelin did not at any time look for a
Daltrey look alike.
VH1 got it wrong; live with it, they're not infallible.
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 12:09:25 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Zeppelin and the Song Remains the Same
>The facts are quite simple. Led Zeppelin did not at any time look for a
>Daltrey look alike.
>
>VH1 got it wrong; live with it, they're not infallible.
Okay, assuming we throw out the idea that Led Zeppelin went looking for a
Daltrey look-alike in the first place, did Roger's style and costume
afterward affect the way Robert Plant presented himself? That's my basic
point--that Roger set up a successful image that many rockers followed
afterward.
It does hold water that Jim Morrison was earlier, but just performing
bare-chested isn't what I'm looking for--it's the male-centered model.
Seems like Morrison's performances had a different feel to them than Roger.
keets
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 09:06:57 -0500
From: "Jeff House" <whocasa@hotmail.com>
Subject: rock gods
OK I relent.
Roger is the quintessential rock god. He is the only rock (not blues, not
pop, not folk, not hard pop, not bubblegum, not country, not r&b, not rock
and roll, not American, not jazz, not metal, not punk, not rockabilly, blah
blah). He is the first and best example of a male rock singer with big hair
and a bare chest. The first man to arouse me. All previous and subsequent
similarities with other performers in other genres are due to coincidence or
thievery.
He is the man.
Or not.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:32:00 -0500
From: "O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>
Subject: RE: Copy-Cat and a Cigar
>From: John Hughes <john@pureneasy.fsnet.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Zeppelin and song remains the same
>
>Hi crazy:-)
He's definitely *NOT* crazy!
>Unfortunately, the last thing that ever could be said of Zepp is they
>are a Who tribute band, or even copyist.
Wow! I'd say it's the *first* thing that could and *IS* said of Zepp.
>The only points of reference
>are blindingly brilliant musicians,
Blindingly?? They're good, but I've never been blinded.
>glad to see that you can appreciate their music - there are too many who
>are unprepared or unwilling to accept even that there are bands other
>than the Who who are equally as good if not different.
Different and good. But definitely not "equally" as good. Just an HO.
>>but it is blatantly obvious that the Who was their
>> inspiration.
>
>I doubt it.
I don't. Don't forget that Zepp (before being named such by Moon) wanted to
be *SO* much like The Who, they were trying to get both John and Keith to
defect! It almost worked too!
>Jimmy Page who was a wonderful guitarist (I haven't seen or heard much of
his work
>for many years, so would not like to comment on his current status)
Oh, well allow me. I've always liked Page's guitar play, but he really
allowed himself and his play to deteriorate over the years. Peee-Eeewww.
>and a drummer who was certainly an equal of
>Moon's, if not in wit and style certainly in solidity.
*CACK!!!* Sorry, got a Cheerio stuck in my windpipe there.
>As a band, they were genuinely brilliant live,
*OH*...*MY*...*GOD* !
"Genuinely brilliant live" is about the last way I would describe Zepp.
Please, if this is true, can someone out there guide me to a live boot, or a
live video, or any other source of live Zepp where they don't sound like
utter shite???? REally!! I do like Zepp's music, (although I lost interest
years, and years ago) but I've never.....*EVER* heard any live performance
that didn't sound like crap. I'd love to be turned on to some "genuinely
brilliant live" Zepp.
Yes, I'm skeptical it exists.
>by 1972 the style and publicity began
>to take over, and the last time I saw them in 1972 I was frankly bored.
Welcome to the club. Hmmmmmm, let's call it the "Wake up and smell The Who"
club.
>> Also- Zep live isn't even in the Who's league based on what I saw.
>
>Sorry, see above.
Don't be sorry. Just admit you're wrong.
>They also deserve credit for instantly disbanding when John Bonham died.
*CREDIT* ?????? Please.
Ok. Here's where the *GRAND* debate in *ALL* of Rock 'N' Roll lies.
Should a band disband when one of their members leaves or dies.
I haven't done any extensive research, but I think it's safe to say that
most bands find replacements and continue forward. Stones and Who come to
mind. Hell, also The Beatles.
So, of the arguably top 4 bands of all time, 3/4 have replaced original
members and proceeded with successful careers.
Why is it that Zepp is held in such high esteem simply because they called
it quits when Bone-am died??
It's my thinking that it was time to say quits anyway, and John's passing
just gave them a good excuse.
>At least, that's what I think!
Duly noted.
>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Zeppelin and song remains the same
>
> Their Behind The
>Music episode on VH1 says they actually went in search of a Daltrey
>look-alike, and that the similar curly blond hair and open-chested costumes
>were no accident. If it's stated publicly, you'd figure there's truth in
>it, or else they'd complain.
Heh, Heh. You got Keets after ya now!
>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
>Subject: Re: Cigars & Bo Peep; Rock Gods & Profanity
>
>Kevin:
Yes?
>I didn't want to. But I must, I must...
Well, if you must...
>I read him more as a critic who thinks it's cool to mention The Who
(because
>after all everyone mentions The Beatles, Stones, etc) so he did.
What ever the reason....the more mention, the better it is for The Who.
And this dude was *WAY* psyched!!!
>But his
>knowledge of the band is limited by the popularity of the album(s). Always
a
>bad sign. I wonder if he's ever heard Sunrise. Probably not. Then he ain't
>no Who fan, right?
Well, were talking about semantics now. Where does one draw the line at
being a "fan"?
I wouldn't call anyone who takes the time to seek out a Who-newsgroup/list a
mere fan.
We're Who-Nuts for crying out loud!
I think most simple "fans" probably have never heard of Sunrise. Sad, but
true.
I mean, look at the numbers in attendance during Who Tour 2000, vs. how many
are on Who lists.
Pretty BIG disparity.
>He "knows" just enough to be dangerous, to get out a lot of
>misinformation.
As long as the misinformation is positive about The Who, then I don't care.
We can call him a "maroooon", but still be psyched that marooons are talking
about my Generation, whooooops, I mean The Who.
The more talk, the more interest is generated. The more interest that is
generated, the more demand for the music there will be. The more demand for
the music, the more pressure to satisfy that demand with........supply!
What kind of supply do you ask?? Hell, be it live, or a new album, I don't
really give a Zepp's ass. I just want more, and I want the whole world to
finally acknowledge that THE WHO (not Zepp, or The Stones, or even The
Beatles) were and are the greatest band ever.
Is that too much to fucking ask???
>That's great. Let's see if they can remember it past the next VH1 awards.
There in lies the great question.
There is momentum. Who will keep the ball rolling.(?) (that was more of a
question than a wishful statement).
But, if I had to answer, I'd say it will be Rog.
Speaking of Rog and MSG Concert for NY:
I did another viewing this weekend (funny, my wife was only mildly
interested. But she did think it was pretty cool).
I'm now of the opinion that during BBE, Roger was beginning to lose control
of his emotions. He seemed to really start to get choked-up. My wife said
it first, and then I agreed. Hell, he was staring right at a bunch of fire
fighters who were crying and holding pictures of their fallen comrades.
But yeah, all the comments of Rog needing more time to get warmed up, and
also of being out of breath still apply.
Just a couple of cents.
Stay in Tune,
Kevin in VT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 11:19:53 -0500
From: "Jeff House" <whocasa@hotmail.com>
Subject: 5 year old audiophile
I've been conducting a little experiment with my 5-year-old. We have been
listening to 3 different versions of her favorite Who song: "Boris the
Spider". She is not going to jump in to defend her observations since she
cannot read or type.
The 3 competing versions are from the Max R&B box set, Blues to the Bush and
BBC Sessions.
Overall, she prefers the BBC Sessions version but stuck her fingers in her
ears when the volume of the cymbal crashes annoyed her. I assume she is
unhappy with the mastering. This problem was rectified by turning down the
treble and the volume.
The BTTB version is her least favorite. She called it "loud". I sensed she
was unhappy with John's vocal as well as the hard sound quality.
The Max R&B version is in the middle, but she thinks John sounds like he is
holding his nose while singing.
So I guess BBC gets thumbs up because of the superior performance.
There you have it.
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:06:18 -0500
From: "Hare, Jason" <HareJ@HSS.EDU>
Subject: It's Scoop 3 :-)
Yup, Scoop 3 came last night. Haven't listened to it yet. It is in the
cardboard digi-pack case, unshrinkwrapped, which could cause dents during
shipping (luckily it didn't on mine).
The CDs themselves fit into the packaging the same way they do in the PT
concert discs- except the envelopes that hold the CDs are made of VERY
flimsy paper instead of cardboard (what the fuck?). If you want the disc,
you have to very gently slip it out- no grabbing the envelope by the edges
to gently push the sides out and loosen the disc- that'll rip the paper.
Both paper envelopes have identical sketches of Pete. On the back, one says
"CD1" and the other "CD2"- and if you look through the flimsy paper, you can
actually see the words "GLUE FLAP." The quality control here on these
stinks.
The liner notes are on harder stock and are featured on one square page,
folded in quarters. They look pretty comprehensive. The actual CD "case"
itself has additional notes from Pete.
The discs themselves, as you can see by the website, look very nice.
Jason
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:46:07 EST
From: JVNNSJSP@aol.com
Subject: Re: It's Scoop 3 :-)
In a message dated 11/6/01 11:33:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, HareJ@HSS.EDU
writes:
> if you look through the flimsy paper, you can
> actually see the words "GLUE FLAP." The quality control here on these
> stinks.
>
Oh boy....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 13:10:05 -0500
From: "Jeff House" <whocasa@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: rock gods
I'll try to sponge some of the sarcasm out of my argument and do this again.
As I've bashed before, rock is not an island. It is part of a continuum of
pop culture that encompasses other media and sounds. The Who did not walk
down from a mountain with a holy tablet of the main tenents of rock.
(Whoops, a little sarcasm got in there.) We know that Roger loved Howlin'
Wolf and James Brown. It is not unreasonable to assert that their
presentation was incorporated into his.
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
"One of the notable trends was what John called the "cock
rockers" that played hard rock aimed heavily at a male audience through the
seventies and eighties. This is the sub-genre of rock demi-gods that I
think may have been built from Roger's on-stage persona.
As Pete has said, The Beatles were packaged for a female audience, but Kit
Lambert found a way to market The Who to a male audience instead--so much so
that they wondered where the women were. The volume and syle of the music
were one part of it, but interestingly, a bare-chested Cockney was the other
part. As Lew has pointed out, Daltrey became the idol of a generation of
young men."
OK. I understand the model. Roger ala Tommy is definitely the largest
phallus of this group. I think that Roger needed Pete's Tommy character to
develop this presence. It brought out the actor and charismatic performer
that became his great gift to the audience.
Mark has added Ozzy to the list, where he belongs. He was known to take his
shirt off and did have big hair. Definitely aimed at a male audience.
Morrison is the precursor to Roger's 'Tommy' - IMHO. Jim had big hair
before Roger. While he didn't flash his chest much, he was known to shake
his ass and pretend to present his penis to his audience. He was marketed
more toward the teenyboppers, so that is a strike against him.
Iggy Pop was a Morrison follower who got into the act before Tommy. He had
a more violent side and was not popular enough to get very close to
godliness. He was a great practitioner of fully throwing himself into his
vocal performance. Projecting the performance through the body and
appearance is central to the demi-god model. Iggy gets points here for his
willingness to cut loose and express himself as a performer. His
'character' or persona was not godly, but it was vivid. So I guess he's no
god either. He's more the punk model.
Elvis was definitely godly, but by our definition of rock (all things
post-Who) he is not rock. Lots of charisma, beauty, big hair, posing and
capes. You don't get much more godly than that. Too bad he had a southern
accent, got his start in the 50s, came before The Who, toyed with many
musical styles, made bad movies, and faded sloppily into old age. Otherwise
he might have made the list :-)
Damn, I just couldn't keep the sarcasm all the way out.
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 13:49:41 EST
From: Lilac6420@aol.com
Subject: Who Uncut
Hey everyone!
I was at Barnes and Noble last night and I found this *amazing* british
magazine called Uncut and it has a pic of the Who circa '65 on the cover and
a whole 26 pages on them! The bulk of the stories are "Moon the Loon" tales
and other craziness but there are also many black and white pin ups and
reviews in it too. It cost $8, b/c it came with a free CD (no who
unfotunately) but it is interesting and well worth it!
Alexis
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:02:52 -0800
From: "Brian Cady" <cadyb@home.com>
Subject: More info on Lifehouse Concert DVD
Here's a little more info on the Pete Townshend Lifehouse Live concert DVD
coming out Nov. 22nd:
It's from the shows done at Sadlers Wells February 24-26, 2000.
It's being put out by MCY.com through Image Entertainment.
It will sold in retail stores and all the usual DVD outlets.
The sound is DTS 5.1
In addition to the concert, there will be interviews with Pete, backstage
footage, preparation footage and more.
I'll let you know more as I find out.
- - Brian in Atlanta
The Who This Month!
http://members.home.net/cadyb/who.htm
------------------------------
End of The Who Mailing List Digest V8 #303
******************************************
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.