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

Re: [TheWhoMaximumRnB] Re: Roger's voice



> > Life's Enough" is one of the most gorgeous things I've ever heard.  You 
>can't say that Roger couldn't handle this material.
>
>I can and do say so.

What, specifically?


>I think "Who->AreYou" is the weakest Who-> album whilst
>Moonie was alive.
>
>"New Song" and "Who->AreYou" are the ONLY highlights,
>IMNeverHumbleOpinion.

It's much stronger when you look at the concept.  We're still waiting for 
the written script to this one, but it has the structure of a rock opera.  I 
wish "One Life's Enough" was on that one.


>TheFUCKING~Who-> should have done LIFEHOUSE
>but ROGER/John did not believe!!!!!!!

What's this about?  They did do Lifehouse.  The songs just didn't all end up 
on the album.  Do you mean the multimedia project?  Or the audience 
participation part?  I suspect it was way beyond the tech of the time.  
Pete's still working on that part of it.


>Roger needs tangible, simple, everyday, mundane subject
>matter to interpret, not in depth original thinking.

Nope.  Roger's got the same kind of mind as Pete as far as the depth is 
concerned.  They do connect right there.


>Roger NEEDS little ditties to survive as a musician, he is
>incapable of being a part of THE BIG PICTURE.

What big picture?


>Take away his shaven, spa tanned chest and you have
>a half-wit Ken Doll.

I don't think he shaves it.


>Roger is what attracts women and non-musicians to TheWho->'s
>music.

Actually, I think the women are pretty evenly divided between Roger and 
Pete.  Oh, yeah--I guess Keith still has a large following, too.  John has a 
few gals in his corner, but mostly trails along in fourth place.  ;)


>He is dispensable in the overall scheme of things.

As long as you're talking about Pete solo NOW, Roger is dispensable.  But 
without Roger (and the rest of The Who) Pete would be a dreamy, cynical 
commercial artist eking out an existence in some ad agency.  No songs, no 
music, no legend.


>Pshaw!
>
>You believe this??

Sure.  Wouldna said it, otherwise.


>Daltrey had no more part in the archeticture of
>crafting TheWho-> into what they became than I did.

It was Roger's idea and he made it happen.


>This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.
>
>Keets, Keets, Keets!!

Yes?


>Can you not see past your attraction as a woman
>to Daltrey and see his short comings as a "WHOLE"
>musician?

What does that have to do with the discussion?



>Roger has a gift or two, little else.

Ah, but they're very large gifts.


>He is not but a follower, and interpreter at best.

I'll buy the interpreter part.  Explain how it is that he's not but a 
follower.


keets