Kinks....Stinks (doh! ;-o )

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Jdtr006@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Attention all maternal who fans of Italian origin....
>
>I am in MD 

Really??
Where 'bouts?
I'm from the Rockville/Potomac area (technically from Potomac, but I include Rockville so people don't think I'm one of those filthy rich Potomac-ites.
So, we have Stu from MD, Ken from MD, and now Sandy from MD.
So many Who fans in MD, yet such crappy attendance at DC area shows.
Go figure.

>From: "Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Pete In Uncut 
>
>Pete digs Ray Davies.  That's well known.

Yeah, just floored at the timing.

>From: Marcus Surrealius <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Stones vs Who vs Kinks
>
>I certainly can!

No you can't!

>> Maybe before 1971.
>
>1972, actually. Muswell Hillbillies is one of their
>two best albums (Arthur being the other).

1971 being when WN was released.
Now, please, are you comparing *any* album by The Kinks to Who's Next?

>> And, I Can See For Miles is no where near the
>> quality song as Baba, or WAY, or WGFA, BBE.
>
>I completely disagree.

Again, this isn't about what you or I feel, or *our* opinions.
It's about mass popularity.
Considering ICSFM was a flop (at least according to Pete)....

>Does radio still take requests??? Here the shows are
>taped in advance, DJ comments made between songs. I
>believe this is the standard practice these days.

Still doesn't change the fact that The Who gets *much* more play time than The Kinks, or XTC, etc.

>That's not how they determine what's played on an
>oldies station. It's all about sales.

Exactly.  Thank you.

>Why do you think
>there's so much Eagles and so little Who?

I wouldn't say that.

>> Not even *some* of the time.
>
>Maybe not in Vermont...<snip> These days almost all the radio
>stations play the same thing, based on the same
>"research."

Yes, I agree.  And, The Who still gets more airplay than The Kinks or XTC...or Pearl Jam, etc.

>They're not lame, just because you couldn't get into
>them.

Sure they do.  Have you forgotten I make the rules?

>> staples...grand songs.
>
>OK, I see...you are into anthems.

Again, it's not about me or you.  It's about mass popularity.
And, yes, the mass public likes anthems.
Oh, and sure, so do I.

>Well, The Kinks
>didn't write anthems.

*couldn't* write anthems?

>That doesn't mean the songs
>aren't as good, though. It's all about how it touches
>people, and The Kinks certainly have done that.

I'm not arguing that.
My initial argument is that The Who has reached such a high level in Rock, IMO (and the opinion of most surveys) that is automatically makes for a higher potential for their new music.
I'm not saying it will happen, or that it's even likely, but...it's nice to dream the hopefully not impossible dream.

>Yeah, I've heard The Kinks on DC radio. My wife is
>from Greenbelt.

And so have I.
Lolla.
That Christmas song.
As Scott wrote, that's about it.

>The Eagles. Bob Seger. Peter Frampton.

Ohhh, many more than that.

>> upon top-100 song shows, and many other survey's
>> conducted.
>
>And none place The Who over the Eagles.

Not.  Show me.

>So I guess the
>Eagles are the greatest of all.

Not.

>> The very top always includes Beatles, Stones, Zep,
>> and .....Da Who.
>
>So you're saying these bands are in the same league as
>The Who?

Not sure what you define as "league", but yeah, with the likely exception of Zep ;-) The Stones and Beatles are perhaps even greater in the public's mass opinion than The Who.

>Look...of the British bands from the early 60's, and
>that's what music since has been based on, there were
>four major bands. The Beatles, Stones, Kinks and Who.

I'd be willing to bet money that most music fans would replace Kinks with Zep in that list.
Sorry, but true.

>The Who were last on that list. The Kinks were more
>popular (since that's what you're basing it on) than
>The Who until Tommy.

In the UK, perhaps.

>Those are the facts.

I'm all eyes.
Show me some proof.

>As far as
>being a side note, Pete Townshend MUST have liked them
>since he based his first single ON THEIR SOUND.
>Get out of that one!

It's irrelevant!
Pete likes a bunch of stuff.
It's not about you, me, or Pete.
And, just because Pete likes them, doesn't mean they are better than the best songs of The Who.

Out of that one, indeed.  I'm free!

>Well, they play Mr. Roboto more than they do Baba!

Put the crack pipe down and step away from the prostitute.

>No I didn't.

Yes you did.

>I didn't say that. But there are albums that there are
>some that come close! Deal with it!

I can't!
I won't.

>> Quad songs are not at the echelon of WGFA, Baba,
>> etc.
>
>No, they're one higher.

I can't go there.
Go on your own.

>> Hell, The Kinks and XTC don't even make it to the
>> "legends of rock".
>
>The Kinks do!

After The Who!

>> If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and
>
>You're only saying that because my daughter bought a
>duck! Unfair! I was against it from the beginning! And
>she's not bringing it home (from college).

Your daughter bought a duck?
<slowly backing away from the keyboard>  ;-)

>You can't, but I can.

No, you can't.

>It's there for a reason! "12345!"

Redskins win in ohhh-*ver*-time!

>> THE WHO CAN!
>
>*IF*

So, we still agree.
I win!

>OH, I see how it is! You see the point when HE says
>it...uh huh...

I'm only acknowledging that The Kinks are part of Rock pioneers and have some songs (one..YRGM) that is "important" to rock.
In no way do I feel their best is even close to the best of The Who, and more importantly, I don't believe most people would think that (other than some of you Kinks crazy folks here).

>Despite what Kevin implies, I'm really not such a bad
>guy. I guess Kinks-haters might not think so...
 
Oh pa-lease.
I'm not implying anything.
Behave.

>"He'll learn at some point that you have to face
>problems rather than to blame others -- and the only
>thing more glaring here than his lack of leadership is
>his lack of knowledge."
>                 Joe Lockhart 

Ouch!  Damn!  Zaaaabowwee!  Shazamma!  Bim-bam-alama!

Kevin in VT


Confidentiality Notice:
This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.