[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Dogs



 
>Jim, Re:

>> Q: What Who (or PT) song that was released as a single >should never have
>> been?
> 
>> My response:  "Dogs" was a pretty silly bit

>Have to disagree.  "Dogs" is a great and funny description of >the
atmosphere of a dog race.  It's one of my favorite Who >songs.

>But, considering the question, you might be right:  "Dogs" can easily be
misunderstood as being silly by less insightful listeners.  

Bernd,

I rally hope you didn't mean to call me a "less insightful listener."  I
don't care if DOGS represents the sights, etc. at a dog race.  I never
doubted that.  And I thought a bit about responding to that question because
I didn't feel like opening myself up to people telling me how stupid I was
for my opinion.  I've been a Who fan for the better part of 2 decades, have
read lots about them, have many boots, and consider myself a damned
knowledgeable Who fan, thank you very much, and I'm sorry if I stepped on
your toes by saying that DOGS was silly.  But the question did ask for my
opinion and I gave it and that doesn't make me less insightful.  

Let me put my opinion in some context:  The Who (essentially, Pete and
probably Kit Lambert) were banking a lot on the success of DOGS back in
summer, 1968.  They really wanted that major hit single in Britain.  The
"silliness" of DOGS is that if they wanted a hit, it didn't seem to me that a
damned song about a dog race and a "greyhound on either knee" would really
sell a lot of vinyl (and it didn't).  I would have figured that if I CAN SEE
FOR MILES wasn't a big British hit that DOGS bloody well wouldn't either.
 That's why I thought DOGS was silly.  I never said I didn't like it (it is
actually funny, but I think it inappropriate for a single with so much riding
on it).

Jim (I am teed off)