Re: Dogs

[Godfather <lmunro@mustang.uwo.ca>]

Jim re:

> 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).

The story I read was that the record company was pushing Pete for a new 
single, and since he was still upset over the lack of success of ICSFM, 
he purposely released a less-than-fantastic single, Dogs.

Luke