Re: Pete The Liar

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@akrobiz.com>]

> >Actually, I think Roger is the person who likes to speak about 
> >possibilities as if they're already fact.
> 
> If it's something he wants to see happen, you mean? 

Yes, totally.  For all we know Roger willed the 2000 Tour into existence!
And he's working hard on willing a new studio album as well!

> I suspect that Pete has lots of great ideas, and when he has them they're 
> exciting and entertaining and he talks about them, and starts right off to 
> do them, but then something else comes up, and something else, so he ends up 
> with fifty or so projects sitting around in various states of completion.  
> Organizing things was something he said Kit Lambert did for him--a problem 
> of focus.

Pete's exactly like that in interviews, too.  He starts out on one topic & is soon
deep within another.  Interviewers have said they love interviewing Pete.  Ask
him a question & he can talk for an hour.  And he may or may not answer the
original question!

One might say this is being "long-winded" but that implies boredom for the 
listener, & Pete is never boring.  Insightful, puzzling, funny, crude, earnest,
& witty yes.  But never boring.

You're right - we tend to forget or overlook Kit Lambert's ability to focus Pete's
blurry erraticisms, & cement those "projects....in various states of completion"
into manageable, artistic units.  Until Kit got all fucked up on drugs, that is.

Daltrey should be commended for praising Kit Lambert in recent interviews, 
stressing his importance in the early Who.  Did Pete think he outgrew Lambert's
scrutiny?  Was it drugs?  Money?  Pride?  All of the above?  Did Pete, & The
Who, lose something vital when Kit Lambert's role as "creative sounding-board"
began to wane?


- SCHRADE in Akron