Pissing contest!

[thewho rocks <leb905@yahoo.com>]

Luke Pacholski <lukpac+usenet@lukpac.org> wrote in message
news:<lukpac+usenet-469474.21591921092001@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
> >Remember that artists always get a sucky
> >deal from their record labels.
> 
> I'd say that's a gross generalization.

So what kind of a deal does Pete have?  A few cents on each $15-$30 of
cd?  Okay, maybe a dollar if he's doing really great.  


> There's no way Pete would be taking a loss. A lot more work went into

> some of the other remixed/remastered CDs. Getting a *real* mastering 
> engineer instead of his brother-in-law would have cost at most a few 
> more thousand dollars, if that. Ie, not that much.
> 
> Also, keep in mind Pete gets a lot of the publishing money since he 
> wrote the songs...

How much more?  Five cents a cd?  Ten?  
 

> >Why should Pete buy bootlegs?  Or why should he sit around listening
> >to bootlegs of his Seventies work?  Studying it, so he can exactly
> >replicate the sound in official releases?  The Who is The Who, and
> >they don't imitate anything--much less themselves on some
illigitimate
> >recording.  It would be suicide.
> 
> Suicide? No, that would be what they just did - release a shitty 
> sounding CD.

Suicide with you and Fang, maybe.  We'll have to wait and see how sales
hold up.  If they fall off really fast, then I'll agree that the sound
is bad enough that the average fan is rejecting it, too.


> Pete made the point of saying that the reason the DE came out was 
> because of the bootleg. Wouldn't it make sense to actually listen to
the 
> bootleg first if everyone loved it so much? Ie, see what all the fuss
is 
> about...

I dunno.  Maybe he would wince at every sour note and never notice what
you consider to be the great sound.  Remember that Pete doesn't hear
the same thing you do when he listens to The Who.  Maybe Roger does,
but not Pete.



> >Yes, I know some artists say they collect boots of their own work,
but
> >The Who is notoriously uninterested in their own past work--they've
> >always been musicians in the present, and always on the cutting edge
> >of new sound.  They don't do this by imitating anybody else's
> >work--especially that of bootleggers.
> 
> So, you're saying that it's *OK* for the DE to sound bad because The
Who 
> are uninterested in their past work?

It's an explanation, not a justification.


> >It's a matter
> >of PRINCIPAL that fans should buy official releases over bootlegs,
> >regardless of how they sound--because the band gets money from the
> >official releases and NOT from bootlegs.
> 
> The band doesn't *deserve* money for the DE. It's terrible. The fans 
> should buy the better release, not simply what the band thinks will
pass.

No, fans should not buy the bootleg over the official release, because
the bootleg steals from your favorite band.  It is released without The
Who's permission and it pays them no royalties.  



> >The fact
> >that you guys (Luke and Fang) are bad-mouthing the album to the
point
> >of recommending that fans NOT buy it indicates you've got some
issues
> >beyond just the sound.
> 
> And what issues would those be, exactly?

You tell me.  Control issues?  Spite?

 
> If the DE sounded as good as the bootleg, I'd tell people to buy it.
No 
> question. However, it doesn't. Plain and simple. Why tell people to
buy 
> an inferior product when a superior product is available?

Everybody just dashed out and blew $60-$90 for an "Instant Party" boot
of pirated music with a few great pics thrown in.  Now you're going to
say they shouldn't buy The Who's official release of Leeds DE? 


> >Is this some kind of power struggle where you think you can force
Pete
> >to do it the way you want?  OR ELSE you're going to put out a
> >recording in competition just to show him you can do it better?
> 
> No need to - the bootleg has been out for several years.

What about Luke at Leeds?


LB



=====
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.