Re: Andnow for something "completely different.."

[Beau McCrury <Beau.McCrury@ucop.edu>]

Hi,
Thanx very much for your note.  I find all your comments very interesting and
insightful.  Let me throw a few comments in your note by way of response.
At 09:30 AM 7/4/97 -0400, JB2TheWho@aol.com wrote:
>Beau,
>
>I thought you made two superb points in your last note (excerpt cited below).

Gee thanx:)
>


However, if you really want to mess with you own
>head vis a vis THE WHO and PETE's genius, do exactly the process described
>above, decide firmly upon a meaning, and then go back and listen to PETE's
>original "Demo" and get totally messed up and confused all over again - But
>it also gives you yet another insight into the unique genius of PETE
>TOWNSHEND.

That's a very interesting idea.  I'll have to try that.  But it seems to 
illustrate a phenomenon of the artistic process.  It evolves.  That artistic
license is given out and used not only by Pete but by other members of the
group.  I could very easily see Pete submitting a song to The Who and them
fiddling around with it further, or as Keith once said 'we who'd it'.  Also
I think that the artistic process doesn't have to stop with recordings.  I
feel that the artistic process can continue with the listener.  For example,
listening to a symphony with the lights out, your mind starts to wonder and
potentially can create very wonderful ideas.  One of the reasons that I find
the music of The Who so personal is that I have taken it into my own creative
space and well, I Beau'd it.  And I think that's one of the reasons the Digest
is so valuable because we all get to see what The Who mean to others and what
we have all done to it.

>(I am assuming that you are famaliar with the "demos"?? 

Yes I am.  I have them both.  Thanx for revitalizing my interest in them 
with your letter here.  I'm looking forward to giving them another listen,
and with new insight, thanx!
>
>(You can also get an even rarer sense of the genius of Roger Daltrey, or at
>least, what THE WHO would be missing without him (A LOT!!). PETE's my hero
>but he's not the most macho guy in the world and some of his love songs,
>especially the early ones like "I can't explain" sound like George Bush OFF
>of steroids --Pure Cane Syrup!! Then Roger gets ahold of it and the end
>result is a ultra-cool sort of "snarl" instead of a wimpy "Oh..I'm so
>lovestuck...gee..I can't even explain.." sort of deal. (Now what me get the
>S$#T flamed out of myself
>as people jump to the notion that I'd be dumb enough to compare PETE and
>ROG..can't be done..and PETE's without a doubt one of the great artistic
>geniuses of our century, perhaps our age.....but listening to the demos is a
>real RUSH).
>
Well I can't agree with you more.  I think Roger is very underrated.  We on
the list seem to give so much attention to Pete but never enough IMO to Roger.
I think Roger is one of the best song interpreters in the business. 
And by far he certainly is my favorite rock singer.


>Finally, I couldn't agree with you more in your second coment about the
>beauty of PETE lyrics --- there are some astonishing lyrics on that last
>(well, close to) WHO LP which get overlooked far too frequently -- check out
>"I'll Never Know War" which has one delicious line...(OK I'll paraphrase and
>get the date wrong, but check out the wonderful line about the end of the
>Nazis, playing off of the word "defeated....(then..next line).........and
>ALBERT SPEER was deleted." Somehow, I can't imagine Mick Jagger or Bowie or
>anyone (cept Dylan, of course), coming up with a line that tight!

Oh god yes!  I think the poetry of it all is absolutely amazing!  And I've got
to get those liner notes out again, I didn't realise the lyric was 'Albert 
Speer was deleted.'  Well thanx again!

Well take care.  Hope to talk to you again soon.

Beau 'getting that wax out of my ears' McCrury