Re: Is you is or is you ain't a Who fan

[Oust_the_pretender <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Should be here today!

Kevin:

I can't find one here except for at the extremely inflated Mall price. I have to wait until next weekend for my daughter to bring one home when she visits from college.

>What you talkin' about Willis???

The only Californian not running for Governor.

>The party is all set!!!!!
You're invited!
If you don't show up, I'll.....I'LL......*I'LL*........

So if I come to the party but not go to the show, how about that?

>Oh I love you guys, you are so analytical (which is good). I would not die of 
thirst or buy water, I would have to fix the well.

Sandy:

Resurrect the dead?

> See, if you have the main 
parts working well (Rog and Pete) then you fix the rest, the best you can.

Well, perhaps we differ on "the main parts." I'd say the main parts were the musicians and Roger was icing on the cake. The Who would have still been amazing with a mediocre vocalist. Now we have only one of the three musicians, and to be honest the least of the three.

>on last year and I loved every minute of it!

That's good. What I've heard would have left me sad and empty. It's just different for us all.

>You have to give Aerosmith credit.

No, I don't. They had two good albums a hunderd years ago. Since then they've been fair to horrible and are basically recycling their sound to death. Now they've got other songwriters making them "Aerosmith" songs. Like Pink Floyd. It's hard for me to respect that. It's a bit too Las Vegas for me.

>and I sure don't want to listen to that...do you?......Sandy

No, but it doesn't matter what I want. My parents didn't want The Who either.

>So, technically they should've stopped before they created their first
album then!

Scott:

Oh, stop showing off by being analytical for Sandy! Trying to make brownie points. Sheesh!

> They had the perfect chemistry. Why "cash in" by making 
an album? See how silly that sounds?

It's restating the argument. Quad Who were equally great chemistry-wise. After that it started to fall off gradually. Had they stopped after Quad they would have had as perfect a career as The Sex Pistols did...that is, before they came back with revival tours...damn, none of my heroes are immune.

>But I know you'll say they were only "cashing in" after Moon had died.

No, I understand the reasoning for going on. Would have been nice if they'd had Carl Palmer as a drummer, though.

>For some reason, you see it only as "cashing in" & not what it really
is: making music.

Well, maybe it's that 20 years without any new material that makes me see it that way. Even Plant & Page had new material.

> Besides, it's still *their* band. They are the surviving members. Their decision is final. 

This is true, but I don't have to agree or like it or condone it in any way.

>Townshend has said a lot things, so what?

DAMN! I was hoping no one would call me on that. Bastard! Point to you.

> He's also said (more recently) that he no longer cares what people think about his actions.

Good for him. I'm glad he doesn't care what his fans think anymore.

> He embraces recklessness.

Yeah, whatever. He's as reckless as Grampa McCoy, redoing his old material over and over again.

>place? Now, all of a sudden, Townshend is supposed to be some disciplined,
high-standard-abiding artist? C'mon.... 

What do you mean, "all of a sudden?" He's been just that way since the heroin.

>Because you seem to hate the music, the sound, of the fragmented Who &
yet all it will take to get you to see a show is a name change!

Well, I don't hate the music. I hate that they degrade the legacy of what was clearly the greatest Rock band in the world. Now it's Creedence Clearwater REVISITED, if you know what I mean. A name change would indicate they're not trying to promote themselves as a high standard they cannot possibly ever achieve, and are just out to party and make good music. Understand-a-voo?

 >Who, then I think it's *your* integrity you're worried about, not The
Who's. 

Nah. I'm secure in my integrity (lighting candles and chanting).

> Would you not be able to live with yourself?

I'd just hate the entire charade (no pun intended) of pretending it was The Who. They're better than that. Or, at least, they used to be. That's when they captured my mind, or heart, or whatever you want to call it. I'm not a Who fan just because I love their music. Hell, I love a LOT of music, from Elvis to Pearl Jam (thanks for another opportunity to mention them). No, they were more than just great music. They were the standard-bearer. Now, if still calling it The Who, they're a Vegas oldies revue show and dancers. What do you think of the fat Elvis Las Vegas shows compared to when he was lean and mean?

If it was Kiss, I'd expect it. But not The Who.

>Would you have sold out on some kind of personal level? Sounds like you're busting your own balls, man! 

I do set a high standard for myself, what's wrong with that?

>Oh come on. Who's pretending? (A ha! There's an album title!)

I could buy that. Pete Townshend/Roger Daltrey - Who's Pretending.

>Yeah, like everyone going to Who shows now thinks Moon & Entwistle might
be there!

Oh, well, we've established that most music fans don't even know Entwistle's name. So there's some truth to that.

>Bad analogy because the Beatles never did subsequent tours with a dimin-
ished original line-up.

Good analogy, because that doesn't matter.

> If they had, then Ringo & Paul touring as the Beatles *wouldn't* be that shocking. 

I think Beatles fans would be appalled.

>I understand, but don't you see that you're projecting some sort of *per-
sonal* ideology onto the band? "That's not *my* Who! I saw The Who!
Back in '75! Now, *that* was The Who!"

I never said that. I highly praised the 2000 tour, as you recall.

>What about Simon Malia's brilliant post about the mod chick who disregard-
ed any Who beyond 1967?! According to her, you, Mark, never saw the real
Who, either.

Well, I think the evidence is pretty clear about The Who here and there. I'd have loved to see them in 1967, but I was in South Carolina and 11 years old so there was no chance of it. But the other day I listened to Join Together, and if you think THAT Who is as good as LAL, then I worry for your perception of the band.

>You're denying yourself of seeing one of your favorite guitarists, Pete
Townshend, play live. Just how is that a good & beneficial decision?

I've seen him 5 times. I don't want to see him in a diminished state. I'd rather have great memories of the power and majesty.

>It hasn't been the goddamned Who since '78!!!!! Who fucking cares!!!!!

I do. And I care a lot.

>Legacy is for dead men.

Tom:

No, a legacy once created is something that should be important, and protected. So future generations will have a standard to live up to. If every Rock musician ends up as a sell out for money, then why is it any wonder no one tries to be more than that these days? I remember when bands used to write music to last the ages. To be relevant in 100 years. Now it's just to make money today. Wonder why...

>Integrity is for politicians (well, it should be).

All I can say is: vote for Wesley Clark.

>But taking risks, letting go what were conquered once and doesn't serve 
anymore, for any imaginary purpose, is for creative men, for the living.

Yeah. Let's be honest. What's the greater risk: going out in the comfortable old familiar skin of The Who, or being more honest about what you are and going out as a new entity which won't have the automatic draw?

>sorry :-o

Why? You have every right to feel that way, just as I do for the way I feel. Like I said, a discussion board where everyone feels the same way is rather boring.

> Tour under Daltrey and Townsend.

Gloria:

YES! Or, as Marv Albert would say, YESH! I was feeling like the only surfer boy in NYC there for a while.



Cheers         ML

Please visit Generations on the web for frequently updated CD listings:
http://www.amazon.com/shops/mleaman2
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search