Re: NewOperaTwinkle

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: "Schrade, Scott"
>Subject: Re: NewOperaTwinkle
>
>I was....giving....an....example.  Not equating the two bands musically.
>Sheesh!

You were saying that people who go to see Tom Petty and ....., would not
know the other band members, just as people who go see The Who wouldn't know
John.
You were making them equal.
Now, live with your sin.

>Are you nuts?

Ask Keets.
But, my therapist doesn't think so.
:-|

>You think a Tom Petty freak worships him less than a Who freak worships The
>Who?

No.

>You do a disservice to hardcore fans of other bands by saying that.

That's not what I said, and that's not what this argument is about.
It's about the people going to shows.
If each show has X amount of people who are not hard-core bands, my stand is
that more people will not know the band members of Tom Petty's band, then
John of The Who....one of the greatest bands of all time.  Remember?  The
Who?  Great band vs. ok band.
Sheesh on you too!

>Remember - we're talking about *the fans* here, not the bands.  You keep
>slipping away from the point of this discussion.

You're the one slipping away from the point of reality.
Getus Gripus.

>Maybe we should both publish our papers & be done with this
>argument.

It's getting old.

>OK, let's use your U2 example.

Oh Joy.

> I'd be willing to bet that you have one or two U2 CDs in your collection.

Nope.

>And if you haven't seen them in concert, perhaps you'd be willing to, if
going
>with friends, or if you got a cheap ticket, etc.

Well, no, but here you are changing the whole scope of the argument.
I'd be going with friends who presumably *do* like and know U2.  I wonder if
they would inform me as to the bozo's names?
They wouldn't be going if The Edge were not there.
Oh, and if the tickets are cheap?
The fact that Who tix are *not* cheap has been a part of my argument from
the beginning.
A missing John, the same greatest hits concert, and expensive tix would keep
fans away.
Not all, but a good number.
Definitely *not* the "John's absence wouldn't have any effect" stance that
Mc took.

>Then you'd be at the U2
>concert, not knowing the names of the bass player & drummer.  And there
>would be many others just like you at that concert.

You see, I wouldn't.

>Poopie thinks U2 is one of the greatest, most famous rock bands of
>all times.

But Poopie,........shit..........I mean the dude on on the U2 list can't
claim that the bass player or the drummer are the greatest of all time.
Get it?
Don't look now, but the poopie is on your head.

>They own some U2 CDs but don't
>really concern themselves with details about the band such as the names of
>the drummer & bass player.

Because they suck!
Are you now saying the drummer or the bass player are of the caliper of
John?
Are as famous as John?
Those two are nobodies!
John was the greatest!
Jesus, H. fucking Christ Scottlebugger, blow your nose 'cause your brain
can't seem to get oxygen.

>Tunnelvision.

caugh fuck you.

>> I'm uncomfortable with you throwing The Who in the same bucket as all
>> other rock bands.
>
>Tunnelvision.

Oh, I see.
I guess now Kiss and The Who are in the same league.
We all can see that you are losing your Who fandom.
What was that shot at Pete by calling his new project "his *little* story".
Just a bit belittling, don't ya think?
You've got Who anger.
You're troubled.
And now you're trashing John.  Making John seem like he was equals with the
bass player for U2.....who is a nobody.
Think about it!
Why would I know the name of a nobody?
Why would I know the name of the greatest ever?
Hmmmm?

>> You're forgetting the history.  They (including John) are legends.
>Tunnelvision.

Kissvision.

>Fine, but the reason I'm involved in this discussion is because you object-
>ed to Mc's ascertain that many people at Who shows know only of Roger &
>Pete, & not John.  I still maintain that more people than you realize who
>attend Who shows would indeed *be* hard-pressed to name Entwistle.

Why do you feel you have to remind me about your wrong premise?

>> Hell, people sold their tickets this *last* tour!
>
>But according to your theory, the venues should've only been
>about half full because Entwistle had died as he was a huge part of the
>band & everyone knew of him.

That's not so.
I never mentioned the last tour, except to point out that even *then* some
sold their tickets.
I've only been talking about a future tour without new material.
You can try, but you can't change the parameters of this argument to fit
your misguided stance.
Deal with your resentment of The Who before we tour next year.
I don't want a Sour Schrade Puss in the back seat of my Jeep listening to
Kiss on his walkman.

>> Who Are You had just come out at the time of Keith's death.
>> It's Hard (for you) came out in '82.
>> New material will always bring people to a show.
>
>Wrong.

So, then, tell me why you think people will go to the shows in '04?
Then, tell me why there were so many empty seats in '02 compared to '00?
Hmmmm?

>You think the shows were packed in '79 & '82 because people
>were craving to hear the new stuff live?  Listen to yourself!

Gee, I guess then by *your* poopie stance, they should have been packed in
2000 and 2002.
What happened??
Why weren't they packed?
Why was DC only half full?
Why was there only 1 or two sell outs?

>Why don't you qualify your statements before you make them, then.  You
asked
>for an example, I gave you one, & now you say it doesn't count because it
>was a "different era."

I'm just saying that the crowds in '79 and '82 were large because The Who
was at the top of it's game.
New music kept that game going.
Are you saying The Who is now just as powerful?
Please.

>Listen to yourself!

No!
Listen to this!
And, listen to how much you disrespect John (and Pete while you're at it)!
Jump on Mc's anti-John bandwagon all you want.
I say his stance is due to not seeing him live except for 3 songs and then
seeing multiple non-John who shows in '02.
He has no other comparison.
Of *course* he's going to state that not having John didn't have an impact.
You *really* believe that?
Do you?

>You're down by 10, there's 1:53 left, & you're out of timeouts.  I got this
>one in the bag, buddy!

I got your bag.
Check your Who-fan card at the door.

Kevin in VT