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

Re: New Who, old lyrics



> No, I don't think we have forgotton that at all, on
> the contrary.

Dave:

You can't have it both ways. Either you can depend on them to do what you
least expect (we have reason to trust this, based on their history) or you
have forgotten.

> We just know that The Who are "not" going into the
> studio to record a new album.

Bush knew how to make the economy better, too.

> End of story.

We're definitely getting there...

> had a profound impact on music.  However, the Who, in my opinion, are
better

Kevin Mc:

Hard to lose THAT argument...

> in nearly all respects.  The risks they took were far more reaching than
the
> Beatles.  Until the White Album the Beatles never did anything that could
> threaten their popularity- and that's ok.

As I said before Peppers was a lot less conventional than the White Album
(which had several songs which were obvious radio fodder). I don't think
they took ANY risk on WA, except maybe John by getting Paul to use Yoko as a
singer on Birthday.

> the beatles were groundbreaking because they basically went commercial
> backwards, doing pop songs like "i wanna hold your hand" in 1964 and then
> "not so pop" songs like "i am the walrus" in 1967.

TJLY:

But by that time, ANYTHING the Beatles did was commercial. So it's not
really a fair assessment.

 > the who went commercial after "tommy", plain and simple.

Now that's simply not true. WN was NOTHING like what was commercial in 1971!
I know sometimes it's hard for younger fans to backtrack, but when it came
out it was fresh and nothing like any previous Who offering (by putting out
another Pinball Wizard sort of thing, they would have "gone commercial").
Quad was even LESS commercial.

> (God rest his soul). the beatles thankfully broke up before the 70's would
> come around.

They heard Tommy and thought: "We can't touch THAT!" and broke up.

> I haven't heard them.  What does he change, the words, music?

Keets:

The instrumental demo is 13 minutes long. That would indicate he had 13
minutes worth of things to say at the beginning of the song. As with any
writer, he went back and edited himself.

> About the freshness?  Or about the depth?  Both?

I don't agree with any of your statement. I don't think it was overworked,
non-fresh or shallow.

> That's because the surface message is very straightforward and
> understandable, but did you pick up the fine points of meaning?

Absolutely. The thing I loved most about it was that it was layered, both
musically and lyrically. And further listening strengthened my feeling about
it...but when the tubular bells crashed to the studio floor at the end of
LROM, I had tears in my eyes at its beauty.

> Tsk, tsk.  That's not how you're supposed to write lyrics!  :)

It works for me.

> But those three are genius, you see.  He didn't have to know how--he just
> did it.

Anything like proof to back that up? Or is it mere speculation?

> The moral of this story is, kids don't know when something is impossible.

Kids, don't have kids.

> No problem.  <G>

I think you're having a momentary lapse of reason.

> The proof is in the pudding.  I have been waiting
> since 1983 for the much talked about "new Who
> album."

Bruce:

Yeah, but how much of that time was spent together on tour, or performing
together? You had to give Pete time to heal. Your pudding is fine up to the
point where a new album comes out and then the expiration date is up. How
many times was it denied that TLAL would be released? How many times did
Pete swear he'd never perform with The Who again? I mean, THAT stuff is as
good evidence as yours.

> Yes, there was much talk about a new
> LP in '83.

Yeah, yeah, Siege. It wasn't good material for The Who, but I wish he'd
released a solo version.

> Yea, I can see why you would think a new CD
> is on the way. :)

I think it's very possible for many reasons.

1) it's easy to see how much joy Pete had in performing with the band from
`96-00.
2) as the esteemed Brian Cady once pointed out, Pete has virtually no chance
of any commercial presence with a solo album, so a Who album is his only
option on that front.
3) "before I get old" has now become a factor. In 1983, Pete had all the
time in the world. But as Riff Raff said, "time is fleeting." This is also
(I believe) a primary motivation in the recent tours.
4) Pete is more involved in music projects than he's been SINCE 1983, and
The Who is at the core of them all.

> Never taken LSD, eh?

EB:

A few times, and one of my favorite things to do when I used to do it was
listen to Tommy (which was a recent release at the time). Also Moody Blues'
A Question Of Balance and ELP's Tarkus go very well with the frame of mind.
Acid was a lot stronger back then than it is now, for the record. And thanks
for adding to my argument that drugs did spark creativity.

> Pity,

What's a pity? Acid or not, that's one incredible lyric.

> Imagine The Beatles with Brian Epstein as their producer instead of George
> Martin.

Brian:

As I think we agree, the Beatles without Martin would have been Peter And
Gordon. Proof? The Let It Be album, the only one Martin didn't direct.


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

                      Cheers               ML