[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Acid Thrash and LAL bitching



You know, I've read this crap for months and kept my mouth (fingers) 
quiet...but this is ridiculous...

    Also, keep in mind that I *did* contact Pete regarding the DE. I'd 

    > have to assume that's one reason he posted that rant on his website. 

    > As you can see, contacting Pete did no good either - he avoided the 

    > subject and instead went on with a number of flat out lies.

Why is it so important for so many (or is it so few?) folks to piss all over 
what is released? It doesn't sound like this...it doesn't have that...I would 
have done this...etc

Are some of the releases what I want? No. Could they be better if I were 
king? Perhaps. But I'm not. 

I have the LAL complete and I view that boot as "okay". Not sensational. Not 
spectacular. Compared to some boots, it sucked. If I'd had access to the 
original recordings, there are a lot of things I would have done differently. 
It could have been sensational!

But at the time I got it, I was happy to have it. 

And that's way I feel about any of the "official" releases. Happy to have 
'em. I get my boots where and when I can and supplement 'em with the 
"official" releases.

Since when was the sound quality of Who recordings that big of a deal anyway? 
I was always under the impression that emotion was the key to The Who. 

"A bum note and a bead of sweat." 

Pete does what he wants to do. As an artist, it's his prerogative. He can 
release whatever he wants, whenever he wants, HOWEVER he wants. You, as an 
audience, fan, critic, etc., can take it or leave it. You can also bitch 
about it until the cows come home.

But, ultimately, who cares what you think about a particular recording?

An artist has one obligation: to create art. After that, it's a crap shoot. 
It's not art until it's complete...but by whose definition? The artist? The 
audience? The marketers? The studios? 

My money is on the artist. If the artist is happy, who am I to complain? I 
can either accept it or let it go. My opinion is just that, an opinion. And 
so is yours...just an opinion. It's not right nor is it wrong. Fang's not 
right or wrong -- neither are you, nor Mr. House.

But...what is wrong - dead wrong - is to say:  "{(Pete) avoided the subject 
and instead went on with a number of flat out lies." 

It is comments like this that make it increasingly difficult for an artist to 
"connect" with fans. 

How do you know they are lies? How can you say that he avoided the subject? 
You don't know everything that he's thinking or all of the circumstances. 
He's brought the music out for us to enjoy. Is it perfect? Maybe, maybe not. 
Does it really matter? And who's definition of perfection are we talking 
about? Roger redid some of his vocals to make 'em perfect. Some things 
actually get worse the closer they get to "perfection". 

Where does it say that an artist has to create (or release) something 
according to the audience? If the audience were strictly the driving factor 
then we would be stuck with the tastes of the "market place" -- the 
Carpenters, the Monkees, N' Sync and the Backdoor Boys. All of these are 
hugely popular, but certainly not art -- unless, of course, you're young and 
find most of these kinds of groups "retro".

Pete put out what he wanted to put out. He thought it was fine. You might 
not. That's fine, too. 

But, you get personal - you call him a liar when he doesn't tell you what you 
want to hear. You, and others like you, berate him, his family and then ruin 
it for the rest of us. 

Remember the chat room on his site? A couple of assholes ruined it for all of 
us because they got incredibly personal in their attacks. Was Pete 
thin-skinned about it? Maybe. But who in their right mind would want to face 
that sort of criticism?

Actually, it wasn't criticism. The line was crossed. That was invective.

And that is the difference.

Criticism is one thing: Talk about the art. Complain about the art. Judge the 
art. Disapprove of the art. Find fault in the art. Piss on the art. 

It's criticism. It's an opinion. 

The saying goes something like: "Everyone has an opinion - just like everyone 
has an asshole."

Of course we can talk about the validity of everyone's opinion and how "some 
people just can't handle the truth."  

But, when your "truth" crosses the line into invective -- "that's one reason 
he posted that rant on his website. As you can see, contacting Pete did no 
good either - he avoided the subject and instead went on with a number of 
flat out lies" -- it's no longer criticism, or even opinion, it becomes 
character assassination. 

And it's even more like your asshole.

It's full of shit

Wm