There Will Be a WHO tour, so Please Dispell All Rumours



O'Neal, Kevin W. Kevin.ONeal at vtmednet.org
Mon Feb 6 10:41:57 CST 2006


>Jim M Naked
>Previous message: There Will Be a WHO tour, so Please Dispell All
Rumours 
>
>> He's been kicking out new music since before Rachel arrived on the
>> scene.
>
>Who songs?

Jim, you're not paying attention.
Pete doesn't write "Who songs."
He writes music, etc., and then after the fact goes back and tries to
determine what songs Roger will let become "Who songs."

>> Roger, Roger, Roger, and more.....Roger!
>
>Surely Roger is a big part of it, too.

That's what I said.  And, stop calling me Shirley.

>> Rachel gains by Pete's continued work.
>>.....
>> No, and she doesn't *have* to have a career either.
>>....
>> No Pete = no Rachel publicity.
>> ....
>> Cynical, I know.  But, you can't ignore it.
>
>I'm not going to comment on her motivation because 1.  I don't know
anything
>about her and 2. it's not relevant.

Well, yes it's very relevant.
You and Chris make this sound like it's an evil and sinister plot.
I should have prefaced my "Cynical, I know" statement with "*SOUNDS*
cynical, I know."
Look, it's not like Rachel is pulling the wool over Pete's eyes.
Don't you think the two of them strategize about what will work for
Pete, for Rachel, for both at the same time?
Wouldn't you, if you were in his shoes?
It's just human nature.

>> My point is that Rachel has her own motivations to encourage Pete (if
>> she in fact is even doing that), along with just wanting to be there
for
>> him.
>
>So?  Isn't the question *whether* she inspires Pete, not *why* she
inspires
>Pete?

Yes!  But, none of what I've written is what you could call
"inspiration."
Again, you make it sound like Pete would have checked-out if Rachel
weren't there.
Give me some sort of something to let me think that Rachel is Pete's
current "inspiration."
Awe hell, define inspiration first.
I'm just taking the view that Pete doesn't need anything from Rachel to
be motivated to work with Roger.

And, please don't go into the "if Rachel weren't there, Pete may be
dead."
'Cause...you might be right.
She is his support, but not artistic inspiration.

>OK, but how did that change of heart come about?

We heard about Roger's support, and Pete's undying gratitude of it long
before we started to hear details about Rachel.

>It's absurd to say that one's partner doesn't have a huge impact on
>these kinds of things.

Which, is why I've never said that.

>And, it's not a one way street.  It's more like,
>what kinds of things do they want for their lives *together*.  Luckily
for
>us, Pete seems to want to *be* a rock star again (perhaps for the first
>time) and Rachel wants to be a rock star's girlfriend.

Exactly.
But, mind you, that Pete was quite motivated to work with Roger before
all this public Rachel stuff came about.
Rachel might be busting his chops to stick to his promise to Roger.
But, is that "inspiration?"
Not in my book.

Websters:
"Inspiration: 1.a. Stimulation of the intellect or emotions to a high
level. B. The condition of being so stimulated. 2. One that moves the
intellect or emotions or prompts action.  3A. A sudden creative idea or
act."

Now, I do *hope* that Rachel is taking care of the "condition of being
so stimulated."  ;-)
But, I give Roger the cudos for the "prompts action.", and really I
*don't* give Rachel the credit for any sudden creative idea or act.
The work that we've seen so far is a continuation of his life's work.
Rachel is his support, not inspiration....your honor.

>No, but he may have decided to ride off into the sunset with his new
>girlfriend.  Who could have blamed him?

Well sure.
But, there's nothing telling me that his decision *not* to just ride off
into the sunset with his new girlfriend is Rachel's doing.

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.




More information about the TheWho mailing list