Re: ? (Jeff's Wacky Subject Line)

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Not really true as far as you're concerned.  I was just butting into your
> questioning of the contradiction between your ears at the Columbus show and
> your ears after listening to the Encore CDs.

Butt in all you want, Jeff.  That's why we're here.  ;-)

> BTW, I saw the look on your face after Boston I.  You did not look happy.
> I was not particularly happy.  It was a bit of an internal shock for me.

Yeah, Boston I was a freaky, somewhat depressing night for me.  I wish our
little group could've hung out more after the show & talked.  Having to leave
you & the rest of the freaks was another bummer.

> I'm not assuming your thoughts, just trying to discuss them.

You don't have to pussy-foot around me, Jeff.  I like you.  You're my buddy.
Feel free to assume my thoughts if you want to.  I won't get mad.

> As far as Mark is concerned, I think he's been pretty open about not
> supporting The Who in it's current incarnation.  In his view continuing
> post-Ox was a bad idea, issuing the Encore CDs was a bad idea, calling
> themselves The Who was a bad idea, the set lists are bad, etc.  He's been
> using the negative comments of others to *prove* that his opinions are
> truth.

Well, why shouldn't he cite other people's examples to bolster his arguments?
Seems logical to me.  

> I'm can't really respond to this effectively because of the "we"s.  It is
> just too complicated and assumptive to wrap my mind around your questions.
> I will say again that I've never told anyone to shut up about this and I'm
> not terribly concerned about Who loyalty.

I know, I know.  I was ranting.  My questions were rhetorical in nature
& I wasn't looking for specific answers.

> Why is it that when I disagree or question a premise, I am accused of trying
> to stop others from expressing their opinions?

I didn't say you were attempting to silence opinions or anything like that.  It's
just that sometimes there's an air of snideness in your tone when you refer to 
others' opinions on The Who's legacy, or their criticisms of the 2002 tour, or
when dreaded comparisons are made.

Your tone suggests we're idiots for even considering such matters.  Like 
we're foolishly waisting our time when all we really have to do is sit back,
enjoy, & accept the music we're given.

It's as if you're shocked when I start worrying about how The Who are be-
ing perceived by the "general public."  You're shocked that Mark doesn't par-
ticularly like the sound of the New Who.  You're shocked when someone
compares the current Who with the old Who.

You sometimes seem to indicate that we're doing something wrong.  That
we're not approaching the matter in the correct way.  That the ultimate 
goal is to just enjoy the music & somehow we're fucking that up for our-
selves.

But, I understand that that is your opinion & I respect it.  I'll argue against
it but I respect it.

>  Because The Who of yesterday does not exist any more.

Tell that to my turntable, my CD player, & my car stereo.

> Why compare Tommy to My Generation?  Why compare Quad to WBN?  Why compare
> Pete on Rickenbacker to Pete on Strat?  Why compare The Who to The Stones?
> Why compare the JEB to The Who?  Why compare Entwistle clean to Entwistle
> distorted?  

Why not, if the discussions lead to fleshed out ideas & opinions?  What's
the harm in that?  I truly believe it's human nauture to want to compare &
analyze things.  Plus, there's only so much we can talk about here!

> Why compare me to John C. Holmes?  

< cough >

> Why not just say you prefer something or that they are simply different? 

That sounds way too simplistic.  Where's the fun in that?  That would mean
I couldn't compare, say, a Pete demo to the Who's version.  I couldn't dis-
cuss the progression over the years of, say, the song "My Generation."  I
couldn't compare a remastered album to the old version.  Daltrey's current
phrasing on "Substitute" to the way he was singing it in the 70's & 80's.

You seem to view the comparing of things as useless & futile.  Sure, our com-
parisons can't change the past or affect the present.  We know that.  We
simply use it as a tool to formulate ideas, express opinions, & enjoy dis-
cussions.  That's all.

> Go for it.  I just think there is a difference between saying "his voice is
> shot" and "his voice isn't what it used to be".  

Yes, I agree.

> It is the difference between saying "He can't fuck any more" and "He doesn't 
> fuck as good as he used to".  Huge difference IMO.

I accept that.

>  I'm in complete agreement with the rest of your rant and offer no further
> counterpoints.

Good, let's go get a beer!  ;-)


- SCHRADE in Akron