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

Re: Just saying No; The progression of songwriting



> Damn you!  You beat me to it.  I was wondering too if it's the lack of
> drugs, etc. that has Pete stymied (if her really is).

Kevin:

I'd say No to that, because I don't believe drugs were a factor in his
writing after WN. See how his writing went from the fanciful (SO, WN, Tommy)
to the extremely realistic (Quad, WBN, WAY). Sounds like someone not doing
drugs to me! And I don't count heroin, because I don't consider that a drug
which sparks creativity (although performance is another matter).
This is not to say that a bit of LSD or pot might not spark some creativity
in Pete at this point. It might, it's certainly possible. But I wouldn't
advocate drug use to anyone, especially something with as much potential to
screw up a mindset as LSD.

> Insanity = not being normal.  Being on drugs = not being normal.  Not
being
> normal = looking at things in a different way that is often appreciated
> greatly by those that are....."normal".

History tells us most creative and genius-level people had screwed up
childhoods. Drugs might have been a shortcut, but in any case it does take a
different viewpoint to make something new. As a writer, I tend to look at
things from every conceivable point of view...which can be a good or a bad
thing, depending on how it's used. There is such a thing as too much
information, and there's no spontaneity (hope the spell check gets that one)
in it, something I think IS present in Pete's music.

> apart.  It seems The Dead were tripping, The Band were drunk and The
> Allman's were coked up.

Jeff:

I can tell you from experience (as a roadie), at this point in their career
the Allmans were heavy drinkers. That's not to say there wasn't coke present
as well, but I remember one show where Greg passed out for a half hour
(which was filled with a aimless drum solo which had hard core fans leaving)
and one doesn't tend to pass out on coke.

> Presumably, all involved are now relatively clean.

I think that's a fair presumtion, with the possible exception of Entwistle.

> > Anyone else?  If there is serious interest in this, I'll pursue it.

Rich:

I'd be careful with this, as there are certainly copyrights to consider.

> I think the current whogasm woman has got me beat.

Kevin:

There's always the next collection.

> This is fairly typical with creativity.  It generally drops off with age,

Keets:

I'm going to have to disagree with you again. Many book writers have no
problem with creativity and age, nor artists. While it's true that musicians
have most often had a fall-off, I have to wonder if it's not due to the
changing style of music and perhaps even more importantly the musician
having "made it" and no longer feeling the drive to succeed. It's a lot
harder to write music and lyrics, keep up with the trends, and better one's
performance than it is to come up with an interesting idea and characters
for a story.

> When Pete was young, he wrote songs naturally, but as he got older he had
to
> find ways of constructing them instead.

Don't forget he had to progress too, because the music had become more
complex. It's interesting from an historic point of view, but you can easily
see how music became more complex between 1962-1969, and how it has pretty
much remained at the same level since.


"I don't have the slightest idea what I was saying."
               George "no shit, Sherlock" Bush

               Cheers