Re: NewOperaTwinkle

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

>From: "Scott Schrade"
>Subject: Re: NewOperaTwinkle
>
>Again, simply from a fan perspective.  Don't you understand that it's not
only
>the big four (Who, Zep, Beatles, Stones) that have legions of hardcore
fans?

Again, yes.  I've never said that other bands don't have "hard-core" fans.
Where are you getting this from???
I'd hope *all* bands have hard-core fans, otherwise what's the point?
But we're *not* talking about the hard-core fans....ya dope!
Of *course* hard-core fans will know the names of their favorite band.

>> That's not what I said, and that's not what this argument is about.
>> It's about the people going to shows.
>
>No it's not.  It's about the people already *at* those shows.  And how much
>they know about the band they're seeing.

You're just fucking with me, right?
Aren't we saying the same damn thing?
Ugh.

>  (Now we're arguing about the sub-
>ject of the argument!  That's not a good sign!)

No, not at all.  Stop speaking Chinese.

>> Getus Gripus.
>
>Ha!  I like that.

Pictures of Lilly?

>We have a way to test our hypotheses.  We could both attempt
>to predict audience turnout, & then take surveys at each show attended to
find
>out approximate levels of audience "Who knowledge."

I can guarantee you I'll be spending a little time asking the "Do you know
the name of the late Who bass player" question of nearby tailgaters.
But, my stance is based on past interactions with "dolts" (at least they
looked like dolts) in the parking lot.  They weren't "hard-core", yet I've
never run into anyone who said...."yeah, that dude who plays bass rocks."
They knew The Who.  They knew of John and how important he was.  And, they
were only casual fans of rock.
I'm thinking of Camden in 2000.  Stu and I were hanging with our neighbors
(3 cars on either side).
Stu was having so much fun that he stayed behind when I went to meet Joe.

>Or we could just drop the whole thing......

No point beating your dead horse.......

>You really should pick up their first album BOY.  (There's that "boy" word
again!)

Heard it...plenty of times.
No interest in spending the money on U2.
Was offered by friends in college to go to one of their
concerts.....declined.

>No shit.

Constipation?

>But, in the example, I was focusing on you & *your* knowledge of
>the band.  And the other people like you attending the show.

But if "my friends" know of the band members, and are effected enough about
the death of one of them so as not to go, then I'm not going either.
See?
Do ya??
DO YAAAA!  (shaking you violently)

>Argh!!  I meant that you were *sold* a cheap seat from one of your friends.
>Or perhaps a friend *gives* you a ticket at no charge.  That kind of shit
>happens, you know!

Not if my friends don't go!
My buddy Jess won't be going to a Who concert unless I take him (well, at
least he didn't).
And even Jess knew of John prior to me turning him onto The Who.

>Those "under-level" fans, if you will, are what I'm talking about.  You
seem
>to think those types of rock fans don't exist in large numbers at Who
shows.
>I say they do.

I say they do too.
But, I also say that they aren't the majority (or even 40%) of ticket
buyers.
And, since they're going with friends who presumably *are* fans, then they
are educated.
Again, if their friends don't go, they don't go either.

>Why is it so hard for you to believe that some *huge* U2 freak, who
couldn't
>give a flying fuck about The Who, would, if asked, claim that Adam Clayton
>of U2 is a better bass player than John Entwistle?

Who said I don't believe that?
Why you makin' shit up?
But, just because some *huge* U2 freak says Adam Clayton is better, doesn't
mean he's right, or that the rest of the music industry thinks he's right.
Why?
Because he's wrong.

>Not everyone likes The Who.  Not everyone respects The Who.  Many rock
>fans *hate* The Who.

And they're not going to a Who show, or even considering it.

>I love The Who.

Are you sure?

>But I don't have Who tunnelvision
>like you that causes me to lose my grip on reality!

You know that's not true.
Give it a rest.

>Dare I say you're being naive?

Nice.  You may dare, but I'm gonna smack you next time I see you.
Dare I say you're being insulting.

>> Because they suck!
>
>There it is.  To you, U2 (?) (!) sucks.

Dude!  Fuckin' A!
That's not what I said!
Stop fucking everything that I say up!
ARRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

I said that the bass player and drummer suck compared to John (and Keith).
SHEESH!  Do you contest that statement?????
Pay the fuck attention, or drop it.

>So, some U2 fan couldn't *possibly*
>hold them in higher regard than The Who.  Amazing....

You've now gone totally insane.

>Oh....muh....gud.  After all this time you still have no idea what I'm
saying.

You're right!  Gibberish is difficult for me to understand.
If maybe you would respond to what I actually say, instead of responding to
what you think, I'd be able to hold a conversation with you.
What, are you hitting the Jeager?

>What is this, a joke?  Are you just fucking with me?  I'm trapped in some
>horrible nightmare!

That's what *I'm* saying!
You're mad!

>> John was the greatest!
>
>Seik!  Heil!

So, then, you *don't* think John is the greatest bass player.
Ok.

>Not in my book.  But my heavy metal friend Chris has a book, as well.
>And KISS isn't in the same league as The Who in his book, either.  KISS
>is in a *higher* league.  I'm starting to think you're too isolated there
in the
>mountains of Vermont.  You're losing your grip on the real world.

Babble, babble, babble.

>> We all can see that you are losing your Who fandom.
>
>This coming from the guy who doesn't own the PSYCHODERELICT
>version with the talking.

Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize PSYCHODERELICT was a Who album.
My mistake....genius.
And, I didn't realize that I needed to have a version of that piece that I'd
never listen to again.
Can't just listen to the music, have to listen to Pete explain it every time
I want to enjoy it.

>This guy's telling *me* I'm losing my Who fandom.

Hey, I'm not the one belittling Pete's story as "little" for no reason.
Why say that?

>The same guy who's not even excited about the upcoming TKAA DVD.

I'm excited to see the interviews, and anything new.
But, I've got TKAA in 3 different formats and versions already.
Sorry if I don't cream at yet another release of something I've already seen
a bazillion times.

>I'll retire to bedlam.

You'll retire as my bitch.

>> What was that shot at Pete by calling his new project "his *little*
story".
>> Just a bit belittling, don't ya think?
>
>Oh, I'm sorry Jon.  Er,....I mean Kevin.

You see, now you've blurred a very valid issue.
I don't think for a moment that you can call me one of those people who
can't say a critical thing about Pete, The Who, or a song (not saying that
Jon is).
My debate on Pinball Wizard and then my vocal dismay at Pete's initial
reactions to the Ped. situation prove that.
But, you're just being mean.
You just swiped at Pete for no reason, other than the fact that he's working
on something new.
"Little" story?
That was a negative slap for no reason.
You're already dismissed the new work, and you haven't heard one note, or
read one word of lyric.
SHAME ON YOU!
Joe's "give it a chance" statement should have been directed at *you*, not
Mark.
Mark was just weighing the pros and cons of doing something now.
He's still open minded about it.
You're not.
What's up like that?

>> You've got Who anger.
>
>I've got *Kevin* anger!  ;-)

No dude, you've got Who and Pete anger.
You need anger management.

>Because you keep switching the argument, saying I'm "equating" other bands
>with The Who!
>Now, you're saying that I think Adam Clayton of U2 is as
>good a bass player as Entwistle!  You're quite mad!

No I'm not!  (arrrrgggghhh!)
If you're telling us that friends of hard core fans will be just as likely
(or unlikely) to know the name of Adam Clayton as they would Entwistle, then
you *are* putting the two on equal footing.
You can't see that?
Are you blind?
COME ON!
Blow your nose booger-boy!  Let some air into that cranium of yours!

>I love The Who.  I also love reality.  You should try it.

Ha.
Ho.
Hmm.
:-\

>The only ones who will sit it out are the curmudgeonly Leaman
>types who are just bitter, bitter people.  ;-)

Mark will be there.
But, if there was no new material, the attendance to shows in '04 would be
even less than in 2000 or 2002.
Why?
Because now there's no John.

>Again, this isn't about attendance *levels.*  Just stop right here for a
second
>& let that sink in, would you?  OK.  Got it?  This is about the people who
>*do* attend & how well they know the band.  See how you twist things?

Of course it's about attendance.  If John isn't there, they will not come
(pun intended).

>Now I'm anti-John.

You're pro Adam Clayton.

>Better take down that Entwistle poster I have hanging
>in my apartment then.  Sell all my OX records & CDs.  Throw away his
>autograph.  And his bass pick.

That's what I was thinking.
Mail them to someone more deserving, like me.

>said Mc's opinion was too low,

Yes, I remember your Swiss Cheese stance.

>I can't wait to see how you twist this all around
>& make it seem like I'm anti-Entwistle.

You just feel that John was less popular than I do.
That may not make you "anti" Entwistle, but it makes me more pro Entwistle.
I firmly believe that John's popularity is greater than you give it credit.
So, compared to me, you...............suck.
:-)

>*You* check your reality card at the door.  And enjoy your nice, cozy case
>of tunnelvision.

Gladly, if that means not being the pessimistic, John-insulting,
Pete-anger-filled "realist" that you claim to be.

:-p !

Kevin (kicking yo ass all *over* the place) in VT