Re: Speaking of Townshend being occasionally strange....

"Olompali4" <Olompali4@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154346960.506292.226390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now this kind of remark is the type of post for a troll. Is this
supposed to incite anger? Pathetic and weak.

And yet you don't deny it. If there *was* a We Hate Greg Allman Club, you'd
be president.

It was an aside in a description of a video..no you didn't miss
something In your manner, you took a molehill and created a mountain.

Doesn't change that you figure your mention of being sponsored by a beer
company is somehow significant to the discussion while ignoring that a band
you figure is superior also did a brewery-sponsored tour a few years later.

(sigh) Because The Rolling Stones make no grand issues of the
integrity of rock music as Townshend has done throughout his life in a
myriad of interviews and essays. Townshend is very much obssesed about
his work and where it stands in history. Jagger seems to get the humor
and luck of it all. It's only rock and roll. He likes it. That's about
it. But again, the Schlitz reference was an aside to determine which
video i refered to...
Your nitpicking is histrionic..

That's actually one of your better points, and you're partly right, Jagger
is largely transparently commerical. But you're also wrong because he
clearly takes himself so seriously as a contemporary artist despite the
evidence of his failed solo releases and recent Stones albums being hugely
uninteresting to the public. Even though their recent studio album has had
poor sales they insist on playing three or four songs from it on their
current shows, doesn't that suggest a certain artistic pride, that they
don't see the humor in being unable to sell many albums anymore? If Jagger
is amused by it all, why is he such a fanatical perfectionist when it comes
to any public appearance he makes, and why does he consistently keep as much
Stones history locked up as he can in favor of their latest effort at
recycling?

"Nitpicking," in other words that which you find inconvenient to your
argument.

Actually I never specifically cite what Allman's legal matters are.

Huh, I seem to recall you dragging that story out on previous occasions, if
I'm mistaken then I withdraw the remark.

In
your haste to explode with rage,

Oh puhlease, get real, I had my feet on the desk and half a bottle of
Obsidian Stout at my elbow, "rage," what bull***. Where do you get off
suggesting that anyone daring to disagree with you must be either a "fanboy"
or in a "rage," impressed with yourself or what? Can't anybody just think
you're wrong?

Um... the things I "find" are actually hardly specific and rather
broad based criticsms of The Who and how they stand in the eyes of many
today.

They're also hopelessly subjective and faintly ludicrous in that you praise
the Stones who do the same damn thing, one band you slam for accepting
corporate sponsorship and playing stadium anthems, the other gets a pass.
BTW, the current Who tour has no sponsor, the Stones are currently sponsored
by Radio Shack.

Your defense cited conversations that Townshend had with his
girlfriend or what he just wrote in his diary

Because it referred specifically to the point *you* raised, you made a
complaint about Townshend not sticking to a previous statement and I pointed
out his explanation of why he did it. You're not even disputing that
explanation, you're merely annoyed that it exists.

today are getting a wee
bit too involved for me. Too Trekkie. Too fan obsessed. I stopped
reading the gossip fashion magazines quite awhile ago.

So the next time you refer to some obscure item of Dead lore we get to
snicker about you being a "Trekkie?" Anything you're interested in is
legitimate, anything else is too fan-obsessed?

Because, as you've agreed, what Townshend's states can be construed as
a flip flop.
Who know what this man really intends. That's the problem with
waffling. Nothing is true. Not eben the latest explanations or stories.

You still don't get it. What does this offstage crap matter? Is the music
great or is it not? Is Pete playing with passion again, is the band having
fun onstage, is a Who ticket once again a good investment? All this
diversionary crap you raise about sponsors and their "1st farewell tour" (in
fact only one) and how many editions of Live at Leeds there have been is so
transparent. In one breath you claim to be "ambivalent" and then you flail
around in post after post trying to think of snotty things to say about The
Who. I don't know if there is such a thing as an Anti-Fanboy, but if there
is, they got your picture under the definition.

You can love The Who or hate them and not
have to justify a bit of it, everybody likes what they like, end of
story. <<

No...apparently not.

Not when you keep trying to fix the leaks in your boat, no.

Er... imHo Much of prog rock is filled with anthemic music and themes
and is basically geared for impressionable ears seeking to be instantly
amazed by (pinball) wizards and and grand chords.
I Am The Sea!!!!

Yeah, not like the Stones, ever-longer special-effects-laden songs about the
devil hunting our souls and protest riots in the streets and other simple
little rock n' roll themes like that, LOL.

Why do you fall back on this "hero" crap? <

Because you take the criticsm way too personally. There must be quite a
bit of adoration for you to really give this much attention and
devotion to folks none of us really know.

And the other side of the coin? Why does someone who claims to be
"ambivalent" need to come up with a dozen reasons why a rock band is so
crappy when he could just say he doesn't care for them?

Ladies and Gentlemen...DG Devin: The Maj. Frank Burns of Usenet.

Relax Frank.

Let's see, that would make you Col. Flagg, the guy who is less than truthful
about what he believes and why he's here.

"I've trained myself not to laugh or smile. I watched a hundred hours of the
Three Stooges; every time I felt like smiling or laughing, I jabbed myself
in the stomach with a cattle prod."

Ease up on the cattle prod Sam, the "ambivalent" charade ain't fooling
anyone.


.