Re: What's that lyric, anyway

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>My point remains: Townshend could have done better. I'll agree with you 
that WAY rocks and with Howard that even the non-rocking songs can be 
great, but this still doesn't change my opinion that New Song and >WAY 
in general is among the weakest of their work. I expect more of The Who 
than a good "rocking" or "soft" song. They can rock and still make you 
think. They can be soft and stimulate your mind. Or at least, they used 
to...

I just don't think "New Song" is all that weak.  It's got a great double 
meaning related to the endless reincarnation theme of Lifehouse, plus it 
expresses PT's feelings he was trapped by The Who fans into providing 
the same experiences over and over--by just the sort of grousing you're 
doing now.  Do you just not like what it says about the fans?  The moral 
of that story is, don't mess with Pete Townshend; you'll end up in one 
of his songs.


>Huh? Transition to what, nonexistence?

Yeah, as it turned out, it was.  

What I think was that PT wanted to change The Who sound to something 
more like his solo albums, and maybe to lower the volume so it didn't 
hurt his ears so much.  The fans rejected it though, so he quit.   


>> and the new sound didn't come together for the album at all.  It took 
TED the whole of the '82 tour to sort out how it ought to be played. 

>I don't really understand what you mean here. I don't hear any 
difference in the way they played it on the album and in Toronto, the 
"last show."

Hmmm.  I do.  It was lots faster, which forced a softer sound.  Roger 
couldn't yell at that speed.  


> Brian posted an article on O&S and somebody pointed out where Pete 
says the WAY album is more of Lifehouse--about reliving the same 
experience over and over again (something he was probably feeling about 
that time). 


>Obviously. The thing is: what's the point of rehashing where he'd been?

A different vantage point.  Who's Next is a sweet romantic thing 
compared to WAY.  WAY sounds older, wiser and sadder, but that doesn't 
make it weaker.  It develops the philosophical core of Lifehouse. 
   

>Why need I consult anyone? After all, I've been a ROCK fan pretty much 
since it was invented...and never really liked bubblegum (either the 
music or the gum itself). My taste ranges far and wide, from XTC to 
Elvis...Dave Brubeck to Pearl Jam...etc. etc. Get my drift? I've been 
studying Rock music for more than 25 years now...not just listening, but 
studying it. 

Any other kinds of music?  Have you listened to classical, new age, 
opera, blues, contemporary composers?  Rock and roll is actually fairly 
limited as to rhythm and technique; as soon as you change the beat, 
you're into another genre.  You think WAY is weaker because you don't 
hear that strong RnR technique, but actually it's just more progressive.


>But I find your assertion that Townshend outgrew RnR without any 
substance; if so, then why was he performing the `orrible Barefooting 
seven years later?

I didn't say he abandoned it.  Just that he wanted to do other things, 
as well.


>I believe PT as a Rock artist can and has moved the genre forward, but 
whenever he dabbles elsewhere it doesn't quite make it.  

Check out the Juilliard Orchestra playing his music and tell me that 
again.  PT doesn't conform very well to any genre.


>IMHO, of course. I also think he got too deep "into" synthesizer-work, 
as his last album shows...makes it sound a bit out of date, it does.

What?  Psychoderelict?


>No, Moon was FAR from perfect at this point. Check out the history of 
the making of this album. They coud barely keep Moon together to record 
an entire song. It is the least of his recorded work.  Daltrey was 
clearly hoarse and straining. Why didn't they do another take
and get it right? It's not like he had lost his voice, as he proved on 
the next two albums.  Tell you what: listen to WAY and LAL back to back, 
and then tell me honestly you can't hear the difference in Moon & 
Daltrey.

Sure, but there are a few years in between, with assorted wear and tear.  
And it's different situations.  All LAL required was volume.  WAY was 
likely tough work for Roger with fifteen years of milege on his voice, 
and it's not that stuff where you can get by with just screaming--it 
required expression.  Listen to Tommy and WAY back to back and notice 
how it developed.  RD's voice sounds worse now, but he can still hook 
people just because he learned to do that expression bit.  

I can't complain about Moon's performance on WAY.  I think the shift 
away from RnR was likely difficult for him, as it required different 
rhythms, just when he wasn't in the best shape to deal with changes.  
Regardless of how hard it was to get him into shape for the sessions, 
though, the drumming fits the music.  By now you'll have figured out 
that I like WAY better than LAL. (Sacrilige!)    

<ducking>

>However, I can't call the job he does in Had Enough and Love Is Coming 
Down On Me "fantastic" or even more than mediocre. Especially in LICD, 
it seems to be he's "doing himself" rather than honestly singing.

He's struggling with the technique.  Roger's voice is actually made for 
LAL.  He has to work hard at making it expressive, and I think that's 
why it's so mesmerizing.


keets  




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com