Re: Laying off the Beatles; U Too; Spiritual Who; Canada

[Alan McKendree <amck@thenetdr.com>]

>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:54:51 -0500
>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
>
>I've spent a good deal of time studying the phenomenon of Manson and it
>appears to be very clear that Manson wanted to be in jail. He asked not to
>be released the time before the murders (and he had spent half his life in
>jail at that point). He made sure he did something that would ensure he'd
>never get out again.

Then what's this I hear about his periodic parole hearings?  He's 
eligible for parole every 3 or 4 or 5 years and the brief coverage 
I've seen on it seems to indicate he tries to make a case for being 
let out.

>When it's Britney, certainly. When it's The Who, it's much much more than
>mere "entertainment." While I know this comment is probably going to get me
>into trouble, no DEFINITELY will, I tend to think a person with the
>intelligence to appreciate The Who isn't going to be satisfied by the mere
>entertainment of watching a bunch of big guys hitting each other and
>throwing a ball around, sometimes kicking it, sometimes running from the
>other big guys. And then all going to in the back to get naked and take a
>shower together. Playing a game is one thing, exercise is good, but watching
>it is kinda weak, don't you think?

Hm.  Maybe I don't have the intelligence to appreciate The Who after 
all -- 30 years wasted! -- but I do enjoy watching a good game of 
football.  I must confess I don't think much about them being in the 
shower afterward, maybe because that part isn't televised.  But it 
sounds like a no-brainer if any network would like to boost its 
ratings...

>  > Isn't it pretty goddamned pretentious to thrash U2 for their
>>  appearance and yet laud The Who for using their CFNY appearance to further
>>  their fame?
>
>I'm not going to say I'm not pretentious, but I think U2 at a football game
>to ensure a larger viewership and The Who raising money to help families are
>two completely different things.

The Super Bowl had to get SOMEONE to perform, and U2 was a big enough 
band to handle the gig.  Increasing their viewership in doing so is 
sort of the point -- why go to all the trouble of building the stage, 
creating the moving victims-roster backdrop and doing the songs for a 
few family members in the back yard?  As far as raising money goes, I 
for one have no clue what charitable gigs U2 may do or what personal 
checks they may write on the side, and IMO the Super Bowl halftime 
would be a very INappropriate place to make an appeal for any charity.

Cheers,
-- 
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
    --Howard Stern, 5/25/00