Seasonings Greetings



Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 20 07:37:47 CDT 2004


> I agree with MC on this one.

Lela:

I suggest therapy.

> Pete's modernist philosopny requires that he 
be a solitary genius, and accordinglly he's said that
he had a really hard time collaborating with anyone.

They wouldn't have had to collarborate. Did Pete
collaborate with Entwistle? It might have been more
like the dynamic between Lennon and McCartney, where
Bowie might have added a texture to Pete's songs and
vice versa.

> We have heard a Bowie/Townshend collaboration, BTW. 
Bowie wrote the lyrics and Pete played guitar.  It
didn't have any particular magic.

What, Pete playing on a Bowie song? That doesn't
count. I was thinking more like Love On The Air, the
Townshend/Gilmour song, which WAS successful.

> Are you thinking they should have tried to
collaborate on lyrics, Mark?

They might have, but they didn't have to.

> Leave it to you to make sure a disagreement with me
turns personal.

Mc:

Leave it to you to once again start up with me when
you should know better. Where is it personal? That
you're wrong? A bit thin-skinned, aren't you? Why
can't you JUST leave me alone? Why is that so damned
hard for you?

> Thanks 
for all the sarcasm and thinly veiled insults the list


There is NO sarcasm or insults in my reply to you.
You're once again trying to create something that
isn't present. Leave it to you.

> I know plenty about Bowie, his music and songwriting


Then you should know better. Have you heard London
Boys at all? It sure doesn't seem like it.

> IMHO Pete was able to write Tommy because of his
individual freedom to do so 
as the lone (basically) songwriter of The Who.

There is no basis for that assumption, and in fact by
all accounts Lambert had a great deal to do with the
writing. So much for THAT argument.

> With Bowie, I believe Tommy 
would have been something else entirely- perhaps not a
rock opera but something more akin to Sgt. Pepper's

There is no basis for that assumption, and in fact by
all accounts Pete wanted it to be orchestrated and ran
out of time and money. So your big assumption would
have been more what Pete was reaching for.

> With Bowie in the mix it 
would have been some bizare Sgt. Pepper's like album-
clearly not as revolutionary

What you're describing sounds a LOT like the first
King Crimson album, which was strikingly revolutionary
and came out the same year.

> or the whole idea would have broken down between
Townshend and Bowie and 
we would have gotten an album with a few Tommy songs
re-worked into radio 
hits along with some Bowie material.  

There is no basis for for that assumption, no
supporting evidence at all.

> And Townshend has never been able to write music on
any appreciable scale with others as it is.

Except...David Gilmour and Ronnie Lane. Two points: he
didn't HAVE to write with Bowie, also he was never in
a band with any of the others you describe so you
can't tell what might have happened.

> Tommy anyway because it would 
have disturbed his vision of the album.

Of course you mean LAMBERT'S vision of the album.

> As for Quad and Lifehouse, again you missed my
point.  Without Tommy, I don't 
think those other concepts would have materialized 

There is no basis for that assumption. Tommy might
have been a LOT more successful.

> perfectly honest, the music of The Who wouldn't have
been as "balls out" with 
Bowie, who is artsy and cerebral and wierd.

This is why I don't believe you know much about
Bowie's music. He's got plenty of ballsy music, The
Man Who Sold The World and Pinups for two. And you're
once again making a huge assumption, unsupported by
anything, that Pete would have bowed to Bowie but
Bowie would have stayed exactly the same.

> Would Pete have been the insane live guitarist
without Roger to compete with on stage?

Yes, because that came from the frustration of having
to compete with people like Clapton and Hendrix...as
Pete himself has said.

> Think about it.

I have, and with familiarity with the music of both
artists. Townshend has stated The Who is not what he
wanted, and Bowie's work is much more like Pete's solo
material. The two men have much in common creatively
and there's no reason to think either would have
diminished the other's work.

> Would Pete's insecurities allow him to keep up with
the ever handsome David Bowie?

Kevin:

Um...Bowie, handsome? He looks like an alien! Or at
least he did then. While no judge of men's looks, I
don't see where he was better looking than Roger. Take
a look at the Space Oddity cover, from 1969. Or the
1967 self-titled album.

> It's a ridiculous idea.

Not really. It's more realistic than it might seem at
first blush. You remember that story someone who was
present at an early Who concert told us here? That
Bowie's band was opening for The Who and Bowie was
practicing before the show, doing windmills, and Pete
walked in, embarrassing him? Pete commented "Keep it
up." Clearly Bowie was a Who fan. Hell, they were the
ONLY band on his tribute album Pinups which got two
cuts. He must have felt pretty in tune with the music!

> But, it's fun to dream.

It certainly is.


"One of the common denominators I have found is that
expectations rise above that which is expected."
   George "I know what I mean" Bush

=====
Cheers         ML


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush




More information about the TheWho mailing list