I tip my hat to the New (Year's) resolution

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	>From: "Mark R. Leaman" 
	>Subject: I tip my hat to the New (Year's) resolution 
	>
>What else has he got to do?

Sail.  Fade away.

>He knows well enough that his solo career is only going to lose him money.
A Who project is his >only chance to make a little cash.

While I agree with the above statement, I really hope that's not his
motivation.

>I must say I'm not thrilled with Pete's NY resolution. Then again, he might
not be thrilled with >mine either...

I'll bite.
What's your NY resolution?

>be excited. *You'd* be excited. Maybe even Mark.

>NOW, however, it's going to be a Who album in the way that a McCartney
album is a Beatles album.
>
>Then he "could" call the collaboration something other than The Who.
>
>As long as they don't call it The Who. I hate to keep referring to it, but
the best example is 
>Walking To Clarksdale by Page/Plant. It's a great album as a solo project
(of sorts)...but if it >had been called a Zep album, it would have been a
weak offering and caused a lot of 
>disappointment.

Ya know, it almost seems like Pete will call the new album an album by The
Who just because Plant and Page didn't.  It's like since they made the
opposite decision that Zep made regarding continuing after death of drummer,
they have to be on opposing sides on all such decisions.
Ahhhhh, the competition between The Who and Zep continues.
IMO, in this case, they should follow suit.
The *only* way it would work is if they call the album "Who's Left".
It would allow them to still call themselves The Who, while not just blowing
past the issue.
It would actually be quite a statement.

>And as a result the nuts in charge are poised to bring this country to
complete and utter ruin.

Utter?
You mean Udder, right?
Hey, I'm living in VT!

Kevinn in Udderville.