Re: New Who; Old lyrics

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> was that the band have long passed that point of being
> successful, have made music history and have basically
> "been there and done that". I don't want to sound so
> negative but really folks we are talking about guys
> here that are not exactly young and though I am

Dave:

You and Bruce are forgetting one important fact about Pete Townshend and The
Who: they never do what you expect. Never. In fact, when they say they
aren't going to do something ("I'll never be onstage with The Who again.")
it's more likely they will rather than won't.

> certainly not saying that they can produce new music
> but whats the point?

The same point an author makes when he writes a new book. The same point
when a painter creates a new painting. And so on, and so forth.

> Not thinking it out, but feeling it out.

Keets:

To the point of making three demos? Again, I don't see a scrap of evidence
for your contention, only the reverse.

> Pete does return to the journey theme, BTW, and it must be an easy vehicle

It's action in a largely intellectual story. For that matter, everything is
movement (mentally if not physically).

> for him to use.  PSYCHODERELICT seems to have the strongest plotting of
any
> of his full-length compositions, and it's the only one so far that seems
to
> departs from the journey theme.

"Free ride to the house of life..."

> But that's the one I'm using as the opposite to "Baba" and "Eminence
Front."

OK, fine.

>   It's so overworked that any freshness or depth seems long gone, and
> there's nothing much left but the bald statement.

I don't agree.

> TOMMY and QUAD could be described the same way.  The storylines are very
> sketchy and the listener generally only follows the emotional high spots

Tommy: the story of a messiah in modern times using current references.
Quad: a look back to the Mod years, using the four personalities as a
literary device to show the confusion of adolensence.

Nothing nebulous or crazy about those!

> during performance.  It's only after some study of the lyrics that all the
> meanings begin to sort out.

Tommy has areas which are vague, but I understood Quad the very first time I
heard it.

> that Who performances require.  Pete solo is good for a quiet,
intellectual
> atmosphere (with low noise) where people can hear and think about what
he's
> saying.

"I'm an English boy..."

> A definite case of too many words obscuring the emotional content.

I don't agree. I can hear the pain in the song.

> Just because it's a more serious subject doesn't mean it's better.

Who said it's more serious? I am saying merely that Pete's lyrics are
better, and no matter what you want to say about Jagger/Richards, Davies is
certainly in Pete's league as a songwriter.

> Lifehouse, so they have to stand on their own.  Actually, they do.

Yeah, you could say that.

> He's better now than he was in the mid-seventies when he first started to
> learn how it was supposed to be done.

"Sparkle warm crystaline glances to show."

I rest my case.

> idea.  Same with the guitar work.  Back in 1965, Pete had no idea how to
> play a guitar

Actually, he was as good a guitarist as Keith Richards...in 1965. Now he's
better.


        "Houston, we have a problem."
           Rep. John Spratt regarding the vanished budget surplus

                        Cheers                           ML