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

Re: "Dr. Jimmy" debate



Eric:

>As for rhyming, yes, any
>number of rhymes COULD be found, but they wouldn't communicate
>Pete's point.

My point was not that Pete could simply have replaced "take" with a 
word that rhymed with "rape" or vice versa and the line would have 
been perfect.  But if he'd wanted to, he could have written a line 
(or lines) that would both rhyme and convey the same general meaning. 
 He is a good enough writer to pull it off.  I should probably 
confess here that I have a little pet peeve with songs or poems that 
can't maintain a consistent rhyme scheme.  I think it's amateurish 
and unworthy of someone who's been writing songs for years.

ML:

>I really doubt anyone takes it literally.

Once again, I am amazed at your optimism.  I almost wish that I could 
hold a similarly high opinion of humanity.

>I'd say the
>reaction you heard was similar to what probably happened when Roger
>sang: "Getting high/You can't beat it." Right? Did everyone cheer? 
Yet
>according to research the vast majority of people don't get high, 
and
>actually think it's a bad thing.

I think there is a wee bit of difference between simply cheering and 
happily yelling "Rape!"  One could also make the distinction between 
a common and (usually) victimless crime like substance abuse and rape.
  And I do not for one minute doubt that a large percentage of your 
average rock audience falls into the "has been high at least once" 
category.
It is perhaps worth noting that the waste of skin sitting behind me 
also talked all the way through "Drowned", so I do not take his 
behavior to reflect upon Who fans in general.

>Again, representing Jimmy drunk and pilled up, how grammatically 
correct
>does one expect him to be? Perhaps you haven't been drunk, either.

Perhaps you somehow missed where I said that the grammatical error 
could be contributed to poetic license.  My problem is with the 
shoddy rhyming, not the grammar.  Saying that the song was about a 
character who was drunk is a weak defense.  A song with lyrics 
written to resemble the way a drunk and pilled up person would 
actually speak might be an interesting experiment, but would probably 
not be something one would listen to for pleasure.  "Dr. Jimmy" 
contains some wonderful lines, usually manages to rhyme, and is quite 
coherent.  It is not, in other words, something your average drunk or 
speed freak would be likely to shout out in the middle of a pub.

Samantha:

>Another point is that  Jimmy has
>been thrown out of his house, been dumped by some slut (IMO, if she 
would
>sleep with her boyfriend's best friend), and he's had to deal with a 
crappy
>job, not to mention the fact that he's schizophrenic- possibly the 
reason
>why he would utter such stupid lines is because of his abuse of 
pills and
>alchol.  Besides, the song does not glorify rape in any way.

Your point is well taken.  I am certain that Pete did not wish to 
encourage rape when he wrote "Dr. Jimmy".  Do I wish that he had 
thrown out the line altogether?  Yes, as I feel it is a clumsy line, 
and many people do find it offensive.  I don't think "Dr. Jimmy" 
would have been a lesser song without that line.  But I do understand 
what Pete was trying to do with it.

Oh yes, and on a lighter note...

Frank Corotto wrote:

>On another note I'm still laughing about that "count 'em on one 
hook"
>bit.  That was a good one.   =:^)

Glad you enjoyed it! :)

-Yellow "A visit from Mandy Rice-Davies" Ledbetter