Acoustic Setlists Choices - WHY ???

[remove x from address to reply]

Just out of curiousity, why do so many people bung an acoustic selection
section into their imaginary Who wishlist setlists ? If I'm paying money to see
The Who I want energy, power and agression, NOT fuckin Simon and Garfunkel !
Adding acoustic numbers to a set means the loss of electric numbers, which
means less chance of ever hearing any little electric gems as the further
condensed electric setlist will already be overcrowded with the same old
overplayed stodge ! If you're that desperate to see The Who becoming Crosby
Stills and Nash then campaign for them to play a seperate full acoustic gig -
don't incite the old buggers to waste precious noisy electric timeslots on
bland and boring acoustic renditions ! This is the fuckin' Who we're talking
about ! THE WHO !!!

[w]

On 09 Jan 2002 23:05:24 GMT, hiwa...@aol.comx (remove x from address
to reply) wrote:

>Just out of curiousity, why do so many people bung an acoustic selection
>section into their imaginary Who wishlist setlists ?

No shit.

[Andrew Crewe]

Have you seen 'The RETURN of Spinal Tap' ?
The 'exclusive' Acoustic set ....loll

--
Cheers,
Andrew

'It's a song about........cheese sandwiches !'
-------------------------------------------------
http://hometown.aol.com/creweywho/myhomepage/index.html

"remove x from address to reply" <hiwa...@aol.comx> wrote in message
news:20020109180524...@mb-bd.aol.com...

[MILLERJD999]

Maybe it's because Pete is as good on acoustic as anyone. Yes, I prefer the
electric Who but, let Pete showcase his talent on a song and give the rest of
the boys a rest.

JD

[cjtopes]

Seeing Townshend playing I'm one on acoustic or any other song is as
powerful as any electric version and a little more personal. If you watch
Pete play acoustic you will get"energy, power and aggression",just not the
volume. I don't think there's anything wrong with putting a number like that
in the set. How ever I would like to see him play something different than
I'm one or Drowned. I just ordered the second night of the LaJolla shows
and cant wait to hear Pete playing acoustic and solo!

"remove x from address to reply" <hiwa...@aol.comx> wrote in message
news:20020109180524...@mb-bd.aol.com...

[James Dunton]

Duh, get stoned man, duh, rock on.

"remove x from address to reply" <hiwa...@aol.comx> wrote in message
news:20020109180524...@mb-bd.aol.com...

[Joe West]

> Just out of curiousity, why do so many people bung an acoustic selection
> section into their imaginary Who wishlist setlists ? If I'm paying money
to see
> The Who I want energy, power and agression, NOT fuckin Simon and Garfunkel
!
> Adding acoustic numbers to a set means the loss of electric numbers, which
> means less chance of ever hearing any little electric gems as the further
> condensed electric setlist will already be overcrowded with the same old
> overplayed stodge ! If you're that desperate to see The Who becoming
Crosby
> Stills and Nash then campaign for them to play a seperate full acoustic
gig -
> don't incite the old buggers to waste precious noisy electric timeslots on
> bland and boring acoustic renditions ! This is the fuckin' Who we're
talking
> about ! THE WHO !!!
>

Well, THE WHO !!! have put out some great acoustic numbers and/or songs that
work as well acousticly as they do in electirc form. "Drowned," "I'm One," So
Sad About Us," etc. sound best acoustic (notice a lot of 'em are from
Quadrophenia?). Three of my favorite songs from the Albert Hall show are the
acoustic set. Yes it would be nice if more rarities were played but not at the
expense of the "unplugged" section.
--------------------------------------------------
Joe West

(As man breaks guitar on monster.)
Tom Servo: "Years later, Pete Townshend would perfect this."
-"Mystery Science Theater 3000", Ep. 606 "The Creeping Terror"
Remove .net.org to reply

[Adam Richards]

On 09 Jan 2002 23:05:24 GMT, hiwa...@aol.comx (remove x from address
to reply) wrote:

I agree with you, however, there are probably a million reasons why
acoustic mini-sets are included in many Who fans' setlists. Just some
of them:

1. Pete loves acoustic guitars.
2. You can show off with an acoustic guitar in ways you can't with an
electric one (and vice-versa).
2. It's a nice sound - err, in small doses, of course
3. To give the rest of the band a break (especially the drummer)
4. To give the audience's ears a break
5. To break the gig into sections so 25+ songs don't get tedious
6. Some Who numbers *are* essentially acoustic, e.g. Going Mobile
7. To hear some of the usual songs in non-electric arrangements, e.g.
Magic Bus - I believe this would be great as an acoustic: Pete sat on
stool with guitar, the others grouped round him shaking maracas, etc,
like "Tommy Can You Hear me" in TKAA movie... Imagine the audience all
singing along!
8. (see above) audience participation is easier with acoustic guitars!

======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

[Muck]

Acoustic set is in there because #1 - these are essentially acoustic
on the album and probably songs Pete can pull off solo rather than
have the band learn them.

#2 - it gives Roger's voice a rest. I'd rather have a short acoustic
set (Pete solo . . . whatever) than cutting the show short. Face it,
The Who play 20 songs a night. Roger's voice, at this point, can
handle about 15.

It's a matter of going home at midnight or 11PM.

Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3gbq3ug7q4rmu5bpp...@4ax.com>...

[RRRRyan21]

Grow up, or something.

>Subject: Re: Acoustic Setlists Choices - WHY ???
>From: "James Dunton" dun...@socal.rr.com
>Date: 1/9/02 9:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <TF6%7.4873$ql6.1...@typhoon.socal.rr.com>