Re: Eminence Front (and my screen play)

[<joseph559@xxxxxxxxx>]

Whoever said "Eminence Front" is a lousy song (for being too repetitive) is not listening deep into the mix and hearing Pete's scat-playing of his rhythm guitar in the left channel, which is wonderful. It's a great guitar song above and beyond Ox's bass playing and all the synth stuff thrown in for good measure. 

I'm using "Eminence Front" as a key piece in a screenplay I'm writing, especially since the lyrics are great for my story line. In fact, E/F's been used a couple of times before in other movies, but I can't remember the flicks. Can anybody help me with the names of the movies? 

"Come and join the party dressed to kill." 

Crazy Joe 

P.S. 

Schrade: did you like the Halpin interview? 



The Who Mailing List Digest <TheWho-Digest-Owner@xxxxxxxx> wrote: 
The Who Mailing List Digest
Friday, November 7 2003 Volume 10 : Number 325



In this issue:

Re: Monsters and Gods 
Re: the net
The diagnosis
Re: Eminence Front
Re: Monsters and Gods
Re: Can we see the innocence of Jimi Hendrix? (no Jimi)
Re: Paging John Hughes!
Eminence Front
and...
Re: Monsters and Gods 
The endless discussion
Re: Eminence Front 
Re: Eminence Front
Eminence Front
Re: The endless discussion
The endless discussion
going private
Re: Paging John Hughes!
Re: Monsters and Gods
Phoenix House? or Survivors?
RE: Eminence Front
going private 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:06:10 EST
From: Keithjmoon70@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Monsters and Gods 

In a message dated 11/6/2003 8:21:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Why didn't this info. come out in the original statements, or even
statements soon afterwards, or even months afterwards.
It paints a completely different picture, one that wouldn't have been
pounced on by the entire world.
Probably because of legal advice. And the fact that everything he said would 
have been laughed at anyhow. Most folks don't really want to know the truth 
and enjoy not knowing it. Seeking to NOT find.

It would have been pounced on any way you slice it. I wouldn't want to be in 
his shoes on that day.

Jon in Mi.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:46:21 EST
From: Keithjmoon70@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: the net

In a message dated 11/6/2003 4:32:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I keep hearing people saying "Don't judge! Don't judge!" when in fact 
what those people really mean is "Don't judge negatively! Judge posi-
tively!" 

Or just judge with the evidence we have.


>And the same people who are saying "We can never know the full truth"
are also saying they know the truth: That Pete's motives were sincere. 


Because he said so. Are we to suppose he is lying?



>Jon remarked that ADB didn't get much of a reaction here when it was
posted. I, for one, was indifferent because I'm into Pete Townshend
because of his musical career, not his charitable work. 


He's not a deity to me in the slightest and I don't have any posters of him 
at all in my house, but I do agree that what he is doing is noble. I'm 
sensitive to this because I have personal experience with close family members that 
were affected by this horrible thing. (No need to "lighten the mood' with the 
easy "joke" here, Kevin) It got my attention early on because I happen to 
care. 

Pete brought this subject up. Johanna understands it subjectively and is an 
expert. Maybe we could learn a bit from her about why Pete is so upset to the 
point of getting in that deep. She ain't wrong for speaking up. She is 
being real. That is who she is.

>Pete *put himself* in that "wrong place." 

Agreed. 6 feet deep agreed. Is there anyone who thinks otherwise?

>It doesn't obscure the fact that he was wrong, plain & simple. He made
a horrid decision. No matter what the intent. He decided his research
was above giving a few dollars to the people who help distribute the
very stuff he wanted to eradicate! I'm sorry, but at the very least 
that's selfish & hypocritical, not to mention confusing & puzzling. 

Did Pete ever say he was glad that he did this? All I've read was the he 
admitted that he made a mistake. Ever make a mistake? (your expected reply: I 
don't give money to child molesters! So I say: You are indifferent to the 
issue, unlike Pete. You aren't even in this war, so no bullets hit you and you 
don't stumble or fall.)


Selfish and hypocritical? At the least? Man, that's strong. Foolish and 
naive are more like it. How is he selfish for helping/trying to help others that 
he will receive nothing back from?

And why does this bother you? Aren't we just animals?

Jon in Mi.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:02:37 EST
From: SicilianMother@xxxxxxx
Subject: The diagnosis

Boy, I must be really screwed up. Oh, well, I'm in good company here.

I am a complicated person, not really high maintenance and not really 
bipolar. I never go up. Just level, down and down further. But, I like the way I 
am. I like being different at different times. 

A tough guy (gal), a helpless dancer
A romantic, is it me for a moment?
A bloody lunatic, I'll even carry your bags.
A beggar, a hypocrite, love reign over me.

Schizophrenic? I'm Bleeding Quadrophenic.

Now I've come full circle in a way. It started with the music and I end up 
where I started, with the music. My music. My Who music. No one can take 
that from me. :)

Jo

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:06:56 -0600
From: Alan McKendree 
Subject: Re: Eminence Front

> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 07:29:51 -0500
> From: "Kevin O'Neal" 
>
> And, it's one of the greatest examples of John's bass prowess that I 
> can think of.

Funny you should say that, because it's based on a riff John created. 
They were in the studio and John popped that out along with probably a 
couple dozen others in the course of the day, just fiddling about. 
Without saying nothing to nobody, Pete came in the next day with a song 
written around it. John reclaimed it for his own during the JEB shows 
in October 2001. They played "Love is a Heart Attack" and during the 
jam/break in the middle segued into the isolated "Eminence Front" 
synthesizer track on tape, brought in the rest of the band and jammed 
on "Eminence Front" for a while, then went back into the last verse of 
"Heart Attack". The rhythm's the same, and the effect is really quite 
remarkable.

FWIW, EFront's never been one of my fave Who songs...too repetitive. I 
love "Cry If You Want", though. And Sue, most people who give a rat's 
already know that my least favorite Who song ever is Squeeze Box.

Cheers,
Alan
"the average Texan...carries not just a gun but a SHOTGUN." --Pete 
Townshend, 1967

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 04:41:51 +0000
From: "Jim M" 

Subject: Re: Monsters and Gods

>From: "Kevin O'Neal" 

>There's that assume word....you know the rest.

Well, at least you realize we're *both* asses.

>No, Jim, I wasn't trying to piss her off, thank you.

Not seriously. Just as friends do, before the second one tells the first to 
fuck off. Kind of like Pete and the "get on with it" guy. No?

>Consistency is something we should all be working toward.

Sorry, I must have been asleep in class. We got homework?

>That's called trying to lighten the mood, there Jim-m-m-m-m.

Hey, I'm all for that. But, you really don't think it's a little callous to 
clip the very sentence where she reveals that and turn it into a lesbian 
joke? I guess it's just me, then.

>And, ya know...I don't give a rats ass what you think.

Obviously.

>So, fuck my ass to pieces for trying to bring the list back to a more
>humorous place.

Not really my thing, but if you're going to beg for it...

>Someone posts about something bad in their lives, and we're now all
>obligated to give out apologies??

Yes, Kevin, that's *exactly* what I was saying.

>Fuck that.

Give me a minute, I just got through with your ass.

>I, for one, didn't see it coming. and feel it was out of line.
>I'm sooooo sorry it offended your delicate sensibilities.

That's true. At least no one gave me the finger. That would have *really* 
offended me, being so fragile and deliicate. Ah, there's that consistency 
I'm supposed to be striving for.

>Here's a thought, why don't you butt out?

Cause if you didn't want anyone to comment on it, you should have kept it 
private. Or do we need your permission to address you, Your Highness?

>Getting the idea that there's more here than meets your eye, Jim?

There always is, isn't there? We're up to 11 dimmensions, and counting.

> >that might indicate Pete's lying.
>
>I believe my very first (the first!) post about this stated "I'm not saying
>anyone is lying or anything."

I apologize, then. I still think you're putting these statements under way 
to much of a microscope, as if they're a scientific theory that needs to be 
entirely consistent or else it fails.

>Jim, you have your opinion, and that's fine.
>You've shown from day one of this whole ordeal, that you have no interest 
>in
>really understanding the situation.
>And, that's fine too.

I don't need to re-crerate the situation like I'm investigating the Space 
Shuttle crash, if that's what you mean.

>So, now, before you go pointing the finger at me for thinking things are
>unclear, go read Alan's most recent post.
>That's all I've ever said.

This one? -- "My remaining question is, why didn't Pete make this statement 
in January 2003 instead of October, as it seems to clear up the whole thing 
and exonerate him completely? At least, a lot of commentators have said as 
much.

According to his "Detail" diary entry he gave $5 to people who maintained 
listings of sites where such images could be found. Not necessarily the 
same as giving $5 to those who directly produce the images. Again, how 
could this "detail" be missed for 9 months??

Also, Pete claims that what he did was not illegal at the time. Ex post 
facto laws are unconstitutional in the U.S....are they allowed in the U.K.? 
"

Going by memory, I thought we knew very early that Pete paid the "portal" 
site (landslide), not an actual porn site. I also thought earlier 
statements had already mentioned that he believed it was not illegal at the 
time. Actually, I thought there was very little new informatioin in that 
diary. The actual dollar amount of the transaction was news to me. Also, 
he did go into more detail about *exactly* what type of material was shown 
at each stage. He now says that he was collecting info about listings, not 
images, but he insisted from the start that he *never* downloaded images. 
What was the earth shattering bit I missed that would have made everything 
OK had it been known at the outset?

>How's the view from up there...on your high horse?

I must be lookinig off the wrong end.

Jim M

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search... 
http://shopping.msn.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 04:26:29 +0000
From: "Citizen Kane" 
Subject: Re: Can we see the innocence of Jimi Hendrix? (no Jimi)

Forgive me if I'm starting to realize a feeling of deja vu..but hasn't all 
this been discussed on this list before? There should already be posts in 
the archives describing the basis of ex post facto laws in the UK, the 
two-tier listing structure of the site Townshend paid to access, and also 
the amount that he likely paid. I believe the amount mentioned here was 
actually $4.95, rather than $5.

Perhaps there is some persistence of vision here that erases the memory of 
these posts?

Kane


>Had Pete's initial statement been that he researched only a list
of sites to heighten awareness of all these sites, would anyone
here still have wanted Pete to apologize?
>
>I can say I wouldn't have.
>
>So, then, the remaining question is why it's all so different
now?

>My remaining question is, why didn't Pete make this statement in
January 2003 instead of October, as it seems to clear up the whole
thing and exonerate him completely? At least, a lot of commentators
have said as much.


>Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:22:35 -0500
>From: "Schrade, Scott" 

>
>I would have still wanted an apology. As I've stated, no kind
of research is an excuse to give $5.00 to people who arrange for babies to
get fucked.

>According to his "Detail" diary entry he gave $5 to people
who maintained listings of sites where such images could be found. Not
necessarily the same as giving $5 to those who directly produce the
images. Again, how could this "detail" be missed for 9
months??

>Also, Pete claims that what he did was not illegal at the time. Ex
post facto laws are unconstitutional in the U.S....are they allowed
in the U.K.?

_________________________________________________________________
Is your computer infected with a virus? Find out with a FREE computer virus 
scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:08:35 -0000
From: "John Hughes" 

Subject: Re: Paging John Hughes!

Scott, re

> > Also, Pete claims that what he did was not illegal at the time.
> > Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the U.S....are they
> > allowed in the U.K.?
> >
> > I'd like to know the answer to that, too.
> >
> > PAGING JOHN HUGHES! PAGING JOHN HUGHES!

Under normal circumstances, British Governments don't pass retrospective
legislation, usually after an overwhelming case has been made, for instance
with the War Crimes Act.

Until it was passed by Parliament, a Lithuanian living in Britain who
committed murder in continental Europe in 1943 could not have been
prosecuted. But it was not so much the crime that was made retrospective
(murder has always been an offence) as the jurisdiction.

I'm not sure that Pete was dealt with under retrospective legislation - he
was cautioned in respect of an offence under the Protection of Children Act
1978 as amended by the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1994. The entry on
the sex offender's register came under the sex offenders act 1997 - and I
believe all of that legislation was in place when Pete "accessed" the porn
site.

I've found a web site which goes into considerable legal debate on Pete's
case here

http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/

I should say I didn't like the overall tone of the site; I got the feeling
that the owner of the site is more concerned for the rights of paedophiles
than the protection of children, but you'll make your own mind up about
that.

> > Also, John, (if you're out there) could you please explain the British
> > saying "taking the mick (?)" (or "mickey") as in "pulling my leg" or
> > more succinctly "fucking with me."
> >
> > Any idea how that British expression originated?

"take the mick/mickey/michael -- vb. British -- to mock, deride, poke fun
at. These expressions are milder versions of 'take the piss.' Unbeknownst to
most users, they employ rhyming slang: Mickey is short for a mythical
'Mickey Bliss,' providing the rhyme for 'piss.' 'Michael' is a humorous
variant. The phrases, like their more vulgar counterpart, have been in use
since the 1940s."

"take the piss (out of someone) vb. British -- to mock, deride, poke fun
(at). This vulgarism has been in widespread use since the late 1940s. The
original idea evoked by the expression was that of deflating someone,
recalling the description of a self-important blusterer as 'all piss and
wind.'"

Fucking with me(someone) is one of those curious phrases. I'd probably use
it among close friends or family when I realised someone was taking the
mickey, but some tanked up lads in a kind of rutting bulls scenario would
use it as a precursor to a fight - 'ere, you fucking with me?

Semantically speaking,

John

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:28:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken in MD 
Subject: Eminence Front

I used to think this song was about pretentious people
and their facades used to affect superiority over
others.

Now I think it has more to do with the myriad forms of
self-medication used to help "people forget..." The
drinks flow, girls smile, etc. washing over the pain. 
Now one could add "the mouse clicks, and people forget"

=====