Re: More lyrical sparring

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

> > I'm offering the theory that the lyrics to "Baba O'Riley" are 
>spontaneous and the lyrics to "I've Known No War" are considered.
>
>I'm offering the theory that you're wrong.  *Maybe* some of the early, 
>early simpler songs have "spontaneous" lryics ("Can't Explain," "My 
>Generation," "AAA")

Not only the lyrics, but the music, too.  I think Roger said they put a 
couple of songs together just before they recorded them.


>but once Pete realized he was going to have to write the bulk of the 
>material for this group, he settled into a meticulous, comprehensive 
>routine of creating the songs.

I'll agree that he took it very seriously and began to spend long hours on 
the work.  During the ten years between 1965 and 1975, Pete grew from a kid 
that could hardly play three chords into a major composer and a master 
musician.  Unless you're Mozart, you don't do that without a lot of work.


>Why would a man who goes to great lengths just to make a *demo* of a 
>possible song be so flippant & haphazard with the lyrics?

I suspect this is what somebody has told Pete (or maybe that he's told 
himself) in the late seventies.  For some reason he started distrusting the 
raw material.


>It's obvious that once Who albums started being made Pete made the 
>commitment to spend a great amount of his time & energy in crafting these 
>songs.

No argument there.  There's a big difference in complexity between the 
mid-career material and the early recordings.  It took outrageous amounts of 
time to program the synthesizers of that day, and to work out the more 
experimental music.

I'll also agree that many of the songs have more complex lyrics than "Baba 
O'Riley" and "Eminence Front."  I used these two as examples because of 
their megahit status and their simple structures.  They also bracket The 
Who's most prominent period, and "Eminence Front" was created without Keith 
Moon.  My point was:  It's not what the lyrics say that's important for 
hits--it's what they mean to the audience.


>Pete's an intelligent man.  I refuse to believe that for the first ten 
>years of The Who's career Pete placed the music first & regarded his lyrics 
>as secondary.  The way that man likes to talk & articulate......no way.

For just that reason, the lyrics were easy and the music was hard.  Because 
it was hard for him, Pete had to put the music first.  Tell me what TOMMY is 
about.  Who really is the Pinball Wizard?


> > Didn't "Pinball Wizard" take all of five minutes to write?
>
>Perhaps the song structure, but I doubt the music *and* the lyrics were 
>finished in five minutes.

I'd say the music took longer than the lyrics, but remember there's a 
development process.  You can see how the music evolved in the old films.  
For example, there's a noticible difference in polish and complexity between 
"A Quick One" at Monterey and at the Rock and Roll Circus.  We also got to 
hear "Crossroads Now" develop last summer.

That was actually a wonderful experience, BTW, to hear it form up out of 
nothingness.


>"Crazy keets" we're gonna start calling you!  "Pure talent" often requires 
>a lot of hard work.

We're getting back to the nature of genius here.  When you're a genius, it's 
there for you.  What other people have to slave and strain to achieve falls 
out of your head like rays of sunshine.


>Yet you say the early lyrics are "spontaneous" & not as deep as the later 
>lyrics. Maybe it's the other way around!

Yes, it's the other way around.  The spontaneous lyrics are deeper, and the 
considered lyrics are shallow.  They use symbols less and words more.


keets


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