Re: Comments on Roger's "Deep questions"

On Mar 7, 3:57 pm, mail792...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>  I don't see how there can be a "real" Byrds reunion without Gene
> Clark. So why do people> keep clamoring for one? Give it up and move on;
Roger has.
> > Fred Hoffman
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Gene Clark did not appear on most of the Byrds recordings (including
> much of the work in the late 1960's) and frankly, outside of Gene
> Clark's  posthumous fan club, most people do not associate his voice
> as the signature Byrds sound. That belongs to McGuinn along with the
> Rickenbacker and in later years, the mix with Clarence.
>
> Back to the main point though, no one challenges Rogers right to
> practice religion or say what he will, or to refuse to do a reunion.
> He can be a preacher or sing bible music all day if he wants to and
> that would be fine with most people. The point that was made, however,
> was this. Since he has decided for whatever reason not to do a
> reunion, why then feel the need to resort to the Biblical rationale
> which by now he knows very well causes a lot of people to take offense
> (and for good reason)?
>
> As far as this being deeply embedded in his web site, I can't agree.
> It was accessible right off of the site map. He should take it off and
> leave it
> off.

Kat:

Get over it and move on.

RS