Re: (TV) Richard speaks on FB

[Rex Broome <rexbroome@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Keith Allison <keith@thewonder.co.uk>wrote:
>
> Well, what would be the  point, really?*
> I think Television as a whole was/is greater than the sum of its parts, but
> each part is is vital.  You can't just replace one of them with Jimmy Rip,
> Jay Dee Daugherty or Patrick Derivaz.
>

That's true enough.  And I think most people realize this (although it has
the unfortunate side effect of making solo LPs too easy to dismiss, although
that's another discussion entirely).

At one point I thought we'd probably tailspin into a debate over (A) whether
or not the Verlaine/Smith/Ficca/Rip band could/should be called Television,
and/or (B) whether or not it should be patronized.  I never really came up
with a good answer for (A), but I answered (B) by telling myself that if
that same lineup were used on a solo Verlaine album, I'd be excited beyond
words, and that denying myself the pleasure of hearing it just because of
the name on the spine would be a perverse kind of martyrdom.

Since then, the "new" "Television" has proceeded to release so much nothing
for so long that the question has become academic.  Or maybe beyond academic
to the point of being truly abstract.  Which at least has the virtue of us
fans not having to have the fight I was fearing.

(Of course I would also buy a Lloyd/Smith/Ficca/whomever LP that said
"Television" on the spine.  In my mind I would consider it a little less
"Television" than the one with Tom and and Jimmy but without Richard, but
hey, maybe Richard's would be better.  I have a Velvet Underground record
with no Lou Reed on it (it's not that good) and an Echo & The Bunnymen
record without Ian McCulloch on it (it's actually great!) so these things
can go both ways.)
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"