Re: Re: Face Dances , drums, Pete's valley

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> My beef was that he didn't seem to fit.  

But I think a lot of it was Pete's *songs* not fitting the mold, either.
All the negative comments get lumped on Kenney & very few people want
to acknowledge the source of the problem:  Pete's songwriting.

> What puzzles me is that sometimes he did, like on the Tommy soundtrack 
> when he played "I'm Free" 

I still hold to my theory that Kenney's approach to *each individual song*
was based on Pete's demos.  It's just a hunch of course, but I'd bet
Kenney, when playing with The Who, was most worried about satisfying Pete.
So, perhaps if Pete got a little crazy on drums on a certain demo, Kenney
followed suit.  If Pete incorporated a stiff drum beat on other demos,
again, Kenney followed suit. 

> Keith just had it come from within him like fluid or something.  That's 
> the difference to me.  He's a different person and it comes across.  

Well, you'll get no argument from me on that.  Keith was completely un-
ique (and still is, to this day) & Kenney came nowhere near capturing
his feel.

On a similar topic, I was at a bar last night, drinking myself to death,
& I thought, "Does Keith Moon swing?"  Not swing as in orgies, but swing 
as in.....Charlie Watts.  

The bar I was at, which has a dance floor, occasionally plays a Who tune.
One might hear "I Can't Explain" or "My Generation" - but it got me to
thinking, "Are there any good Who tunes to dance to?  What songs does
Moon provide a 'dancy' swing beat that would encourage actual dancing?"

Does Moon swing?  I know he pummels.  I know he thumps.  I know he jack-
hammers.  I know he drives.  But can anyone think of a good example of
Moon providing a danceable swing-type beat?  A Who song which, if played
at a dance club, would fit seamlessly in between, say, David Bowie's 
"Modern Love" & the Stones' "Jumpin' Jack Flash?" 

> He  (Zak) does have a feel closer to Keith, but not the same either. 

Agreed.

> Are you saying that we don't even have a soul?  

Not in the religious sense of an "entity" separate from our physical 
bodies.  That's a load of rubbish.  A lie.

> Then what animates our being?

Our minds, our emotions, our needs, our desires.

> What do we feel emotions with?  What do we consider with?  

Our minds.  You do a disservice to the wonderful complexity of our brains
(a complexity gained through evolution) by implying that emotions are of
some "higher realm" than physical reality.  

I see a hot chick - electrodes fire in my brain (and also, one might say,
in my crotch!)  I get hungry - electrodes fire in my brain.  I feel con-
tent - electrodes fire in my brain.

This doesn't make my feelings & emotions any less real.  But what it does
accomplish is it provides an actual testable hypothesis concerning human
feelings & emotions *without having to rely on untestable or unprovable
reasons & ideas.*

Go to the library & pick out a few scientific books on the human mind,
emotions, & so forth.  There's no reason to invent things to explain the
human mind - *if* you are willing to learn the facts & the truth.

However, if you feel life wouldn't be worth living without the comfortable
but completely baseless idea of a "soul," existing separately from our
physical bodies, then, by all means, keep believing the lies that were 
written down by men in a backward age, before the light of science & know-
ledge had yet to illuminate the world.  

> These two trees are the two sources in the universe. This is a *major*
> fact.

Excuse me, but "facts" can be proven to a high degree of probability.
Please refer to me the scientific study which confirms to such a degree
your "two trees" theory.


- SCHRADE in Akron

The Council For Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/

Faith: not *wanting* to know what is true. 
 - Friedrich Nietzsche