Re: (TV) Clarification / Fixated on a Tree / The MM List Blues / Past

["Philip P. Obbard" <pobbard@yahoo.com>]

Ok, here are some thoughts:

--- "Casey, Leo J" <CaseyL@VOLPE.DOT.GOV> wrote:
> I take the time to type up this quite long 
> interview and review (with a few outri? 
> comments of my own).  A freakin' interview 
> that contained a few new nuggets about 
> TV's song writing and melody construction 
> process, which I thought might be somewhat  
> interesting and provoke some comments--
> and what is the response: 4? retorts 
> (excepting Gregg Luvoxx's) that totally 
> fixate on a sentence of mine (albeit 
> pretty stupid as originally written), but 
> responses that totally neglect the actual 
> real content of post.  Talk about not 
> seeing the forest for the trees!

Leo: it's a labor of love. Fans come in all different degrees of fan-aticism. I
think it's safe to say that you're someone who is on the "more fanatic" end of
the scale. I really appreciate that someone is taking the time to preserve all
of these Verlaine-related articles and reviews which might otherwise be lost to
time. They are useful not only as timepieces to learn how people reacted to
music we love when it was "new", but often also as timeless writing - think of
Nick Kent's review of MARQUEE MOON, which is still overwhelming. I am grateful
for your work in transcribing these articles, just as I am grateful to the
persons on the list who continue to transfer 25 year-old Television tapes to
CD-R so that they won't be lost. That doesn't mean I want to listen to every
single Television show that has made it to CD-R - not right now, anyhow - but I
would be sorry if the opportunity were forever lost to me and future fans. The
same thing applies to the articles you've typed-up; I read as many as I can,
but sometimes it takes me a few weeks to get to all of them.

> But I recall someone wrote a couple of months
> ago that the MM list seemed to running out of 
> steam--almost moribund on the topic of 
> Television. Ninety percent or more of the 
> postings seem to deal with other bands, 
> which on one level can be very interesting, 
> as far as it goes.

Well, the list has always fluctuated wildly in terms of traffic. It gets busy
and then it gets quiet. It goes on and off topic. The last few weeks tend to be
busy ones for people anyhow - holidays, travel, etc. - so I'm not surprised to
see traffic dip lately.

>  I think someone else 
> responded with something like how much more 
> can there possibly be to say/dissect about 
> Television and TV that hasn't already been 
> uttered on the list before--especially about 
> a band who other than Lloyd hasn't released 
> anything new since 1992. 

Yeah, but the list is 3+ years old. If this were true - that we had just run
out of Television-related things to talk about - I think it would have happened
within months of the list starting, not 3 years later. Besides, the membership
of this list is constantly changing, and that puts new people in the
conversation. New fans, new contemporaries of Television, new opinions.

> Maybe I'm just suffering from the post 
> Holidays and winter blues and my expectations
> for this list are too high. 

Leo, no offense intended, but this seems an awful lot like the pot and the
kettle. You were basically AWOL for much of last fall yourself - you told me
you were incredibly busy and had no time write. You posted only sporadically. I
sent you some 'presents', and you never got around to listening to them (and
subsequently lost them). What, aren't you interested in Television/Verlaine
anymore?!? :^) 

People get busy. Even the best fan of any band can't be the best fan all the
time (and if they were, you wouldn't want to meet them, trust me - I've met
full-time David Bowie fans, and it's not a pretty sight. Check out a Phil Lesh
concert, for another example).

> One: The very fact that Television did 
> a limited tour last year, the resulting 
> European and Chicago boots'availability, 
> and Verlaine's/Television's[?]upcoming 
> appearances this Spring, have in a 
> strange way somewhat undercut the whole 
> raison detre of the list. Could it be that 
> a lot of people are satiated---they've 
> finally OD-ed on TV.

I can only speak for myself, but if there's anything I'm NOT satiated on, it's
seeing Television live! If Television announced they were playing Boston this
weekend and DC the next, I'd go to both shows. In fact, I'd go anywhere that
wasn't prohibitively expensive to travel to (I went to Chicago, after all).
I've got years of live-Television to catch-up on.

> Two: Tom Verlaine has no confidence in 
> himself.  He lost his a long time ago (egads, 
> a musician can stand only so much commercial 
> rejection and lack of financial success); time 
> has passed him and Television by; his best work is 
> behind him---way, way  behind. He's a has-been
> and knows it. 

Was Tom ever seeking commercial success? Was "Little Johnny Jewel" going to be
a hit single? Was *anything* on MARQUEE MOON intended for the top of the
charts? "Call Mr. Lee" is about the closest Television has some to creating a
mainstream FM-ready song with an easy-to-follow melody. I think it's unlikely
Tom is brought low by his lack of commercial success. Perhaps he wants more
recognition - but, maybe he doesn't. He's always been a private person.

Tom always seems pretty confident when I see him play. And unlike a lot of
other over-50 artists (Stones, Brian Wilson, McCartney, Paul Simon, Eric
Clapton, etc.) I would *never* put it past Tom to release an album as strong or
stronger (if musically quite different) from his debut or FLASH LIGHT or
[insert favorite Verlaine record here]. His skills all appear to be intact -
playing, songwriting, etc. It's really a question of when does he want to
release something. Tom's always been a perfectionist, and he wants things a
very certain way - remember all the indie record deals Television passed-up
waiting for Elektra to make them an offer in 1976?

> They were just coasting during last year's reunion mini-tour! 

I can't disagree with you here. But coasting on what? Their massive commercial
success? They're coasting on a tiny group of fans, and I don't think that makes
them lazy in any way. It's their choice. More shows = more exposure = more
fans, if they really wanted it. That's been a perpetual problem for Television.
The oft-maligned Mr. Heylin faults Television for their failure to tour
aggressive both in the 1970s and the 92/93 tour in FROM THE VELVETS TO THE
VOIDOIDS. It's not a new issue for them.

> Maybe the masses are right--maybe they're just 
> a band who made marginally interesting music, 
> an acquired taste, who appeal to a tiny group
> of listeners-----a band who are vastly
> over-rated?  

You're paraphrasing Gene Simmons - his quote about "If the critics were right,
we'd all be listening to the New York Dolls and Patti Smith."

I, like you, often fear that there will never be another Verlaine/Television
release until Verlaine is six feet under (or I am). I hope that's not true. 

Anyhow, Leo, rest-up, take that Prozac, and I promise to read every article you
transcribe from now on, if you try not to lose anything else I send you.

xxxooo,
Philip


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"