Re: Re-Pete Still & Studio Man Blues

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I'm just a high tech kinda guy.

You mean like high maintenance?  ;-o

> if anyone I'm John Crichton from Farscape One.

??  I don't have cable.  I know:  "Get with the times."

> Don't you think he (Pete) wants to move on? 

Yes & no.  He wants to put it all behind him & yet he still worries
about public & fan reaction to the whole mess.  He worries enough
to post corrections as to what he sees as incorrect assumptions.

So, yes Pete would like it all to f-f-fade away.  But he also wants
to maintain damage control on his character.

> What's the name of that worm with the convolutedly spelled 
> last name, tail in mouth?

Cocoa?

> Why does it matter if he's not a pedophile? Once you
> grant that, then you have to grant his motives were
> innocent. Right?

1. Paying for child porn on the internet is a big deal.
2. I do believe Pete's motives were innocent.
3. Some of his statements as to what he actually did seem to contradict
one another.
4. That bothers me (and others) because, as this is such a "big deal," 
I'd like to know the detailed truth (or at least see consistent statements)
from this man I've - let's face it - devoted most of my life to. 

> > What's wrong with examining Pete's words & statements?  
>
> With bad intent?

Knowing the facts is "bad intent?"  Believe you me, I'm on Pete's side.
I'm not hoping to see his downfall.  I'm not reveling in his misery.

Your "bad intent" statement leads me to believe that you feel if the truth
comes out, Pete will look guilty.  In other words, stop trying to dig for
the truth because we may not like the answers.  The ultimate act of 
burying one's head in the sand.  Work's for some, but others can't breathe
& have to pull their heads out.
 
> So I guess this means your interest in science doesn't
> include fiction.

Oh, I've read some fiction by Sagan, Clarke, Heinlein, & a few others.
But why read science fiction when science *fact* is so damn exciting?
Not to mention *real?*  

But I do commend many of the science fiction writers as they try to 
impart real *ideas* about science, embedded in their fictional stories. 

> > The studio version has no soul (!),
>
> When the guitar is mixed properly, it's ferocious.
> Daltrey is equally powerful. Keith, I need say
> nothing.

Er.....Keith makes a couple of mistakes & never really gets into the
groove of the song.  It's not a great performance even by mistake-prone
Who standards.

Listen towards the end when Moonie either misses his ride cymbal
with his stick or made the decision to drop to his hi-hat & quickly
decided against it.  There's a glaring stop-gap in tempo.  Not good.

> > Hardly.  It has mistakes.
> 
> So does a lot of Who music. Remember the original mix
> of the chorus on Eminence Front?

I always liked that "front-front!"  Seriously.  Just a slightly out-of-synch
backing vocal, that's all.

> OK, Kit.

Great.  Now I'm gonna be paranoid going down staircases.

> So? If it was the same, what would be the point? Is
> the studio Substitute anything like the live version?
> OK then.

Relax, man.  I don't expect studio versions to be *the same* as live
versions.  It's just that many people talk like that HTTB YMB is the
greatest thing since sliced bread when it's really only the *least bad* 
of the two studio versions they worked on.

Yes, it's better than the ODDS & SODS reissue version but it's 
still a rather weak, disjointed rendering, IMO.

> I guess that no one else here reads Heinlein.

Hey!  I read "Stranger In a Strange Land!"  (Years ago.)  ;-p


- SCHRADE in Akron

The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common
feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after 
another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.
     - Stephen Jay Gould (1941 - 2002)