Re: Wood-shuck; Remixes; Can you hear the real me; Read my lips: No New Disney!

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

> > I was pleased with the two new TKAA and MG mp3s from the summer tour. 
>They would serve as the outline for an album, but even if The Who never go 
>on and record any more songs for it, those two are enough for me.  The 
>message came across.
>
>If you say so. To me, it was no more than lyrical free-association much 
>like some of Townshend's solo concerts often include.

It's postmodern art.  In Pete's case, anyhow--I don't think Roger improvises 
lyrics.  These were complete songs, though, and it's pretty much Pete as his 
best.  Is there some reason why he shouldn't compose songs in concert?

I just don't think the intellectual ones he's sat down and thought up over 
the last few years come anywhere close to the ones he did on stage last 
summer.  That's the Pete Townshend who composed TOMMY and QUADROPHENIA that 
we got to hear.


>I think their legacy is his primary concern, and that would include
>listening to the old tapes.

Well, maybe.  Seems like Pete's generally the one to do it, though, or John. 
  We just haven't heard much about Roger being involved except to overdub 
vocals.


> > What did you think of Dylan's Oscar?
>
>Pretty damned strange, but it wasn't a song written for a children's movie. 
>I've seen no indication it was even written for Wonderboys.

Definitely strange.  He seems reasonably pleased with it, though.  I hear 
he's carrying it around with him on the tour.


> > I thought you had a pretty strict definition.
>
>I do. They fit it. Rage, too.

Does Paul Simon fit the definition, too?


> > I don't know that they're into change just for the sake of changing. 
>Wouldn't that be what The Stones do?

>Now that's not what I said. I said they don't have to ONLY do the "classic" 
>Who sound, if they wanted to do something else. That doesn't mean they have 
>to seek change.

But then everybody gripes when they do something even a little bit different 
from the classic line-up and the classic sound.  There still opposition to 
Rabbit, for god's sake, after twenty years.


>I'm not trying to put Pete in a box. I merely said PLEASE GAWD DON'T LET 
>HIM END UP LIKE ELTON JOHN AND STING, WRITING FUCKING DISNEY SONGS. That's 
>all.

I don't think Disney would be interested in Pete's songs.  There's too much 
libido involved.  However, I do think the Disney movie to musical  scheme is 
an interesting model.  I can't see QUAD framed for children, but is there 
any reason Pete shouldn't do adult pieces for Broadway?  Sex and violence 
flat sell.


keets
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com