To: MikeAnon222
'Gay, Overweight, Romantic, Englishman' This might work for a Triumph audience.
As a Harley owner and rider, I am not ashamed to admit that I actually like Elton John and think he (and his songwriter Bernie Taupin) to be extremely talented... and at the same time, I am terribly disappointed in this choice for Harley's 100th anniversary. Elton John doesn't rock. He's not American. He doesn't exemplify bikers. He's talented, but a very poor choice for this event.
However, I heard he just signed a big contract for Caesar's palace, and I think he's making a career out of playing under private contract now that he can't really sell albums or concerts to the general public anymore. So he was probably available and relatively inexpensive for Harley to hire.
To: monkeyshine
Elton will go anywhere there's money. After all, he needs it to support his $300,000/year fresh flower habit. As a Milwaukeean, and one who went to school with some of the younger Davidsons, this seems like an absolutely pitiful decision.
I think your post is pretty close to how a lot of people felt. They don't mind Elton's music, but this was neither the proper time or place for it. The big rumors had been the Stones or Springsteen. If I were truly expecting either of them, this would have really pissed me off.
Starting tomorrow, and going on for a week or so, Harley will catch major hell around here. Rightly so.
70 posted on
08/31/2003 11:19:24 PM PDT by
July 4th
To: monkeyshine
I really don't think the cost of the entertainment was the issue. They may have made a mistake by waiting too long to book the acts. The Stones and Springsteen, both better choices, are already on tour and weren't available for these dates. Springsteen will play Milwaukee in late September, BTW.
To: monkeyshine
118 posted on
09/01/2003 6:49:26 AM PDT by
Major_Risktaker
(Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson