Re: PJ & FD

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> I got "Live on Two Legs" for Christmas, and I think it is excellent.  
> I highly recommend it!

YL:

I look forward to it. Is it as good as the Atlanta show, or the `92 Europe
boots? Switzerland in particular.

>   Mark, I do somewhat tend
> to agree with you when you say that Pete  lost his guitar but trouble is,
> I think that on most of his recorded work, that appears to be the case
too.

Derick:

I'll agree that it's hard to imagine too much of Pete's guitar in a song.
It would be fine with me if all of their studio material had been basically
recorded as LAL was, with the bass on the left and guitar on the
right...the drums going all over and lead vocal in the middle. Any added
instrumentation could be worked in around that mix.
But I say again that it's my belief PT lessened his guitar's presence on
purpose. For one thing, beginning with WN, he became more interested (it
seems to me) in keyboards and synths...some on WN, a lot more on QUAD. He
backed off a bit with WBN, mainly I think because QUAD got a negative
reaction, but when you listen to WAY you can see they're back again in full
force. And the guitar (except on QUAD) appears diminishingly in proportion
to the amount of keyboards as we go along. Even in his latest solo album
(PSYCHO), the keyboards are more in the forefront than his guitar.
To get some perspective on this, I suggest you get the QUAD soundtrack CD,
which was remixed by John Entwistle with the keyboard-work taking a
secondary role.

> Keith's death that is. Also at or about the time of writing Face Dances
was
> Pete supposedly not into his New Romantics /Artsy kind of phase and was 
> heavily influenced by these sort of people?

He certainly was feeling his mortality (I think) and trying to "be young."
Might be a result of the adoration by young musicians like The Clash and
Pistols. This sort of thing happens to a lot of men in mid-life. And I
gather by his "antics" Pete is the sort who is easily led into this sort of
behavior.

> It's Hard which I consider equally as dissapointing or worse was so bad. 

Here we disagree. I think that IH was a much better album, although it
could have used some improvement. The songwriting is good, the performance
very good (with the exception of Roger, who at times can be heard to
strain), and the production is at least neutral (that is, while it doesn't
enhance neither does it detract). IMHO, the biggest flaw is that Townshend
wasn't inspired to write but required by contract to WB. I think the songs
are all good, but not necessarily good together. And I must say, again
IMHO, that Entwistle's writing here is the very best of his career. I am
saddened that it didn't continue to improve after the breakup, or even
remain on this level.

> And yes Who's Last was or should have been a lot better or at least
confine
> it to one good gig from the tour.

Case in point: the Toronto show is much better. Rather than buy WL, I'd
suggest getting the Who Rocks America video and making a cassette or CDr
(with a few easy sonic adjustments). My biggest complaint about this album
is the lackluster performance, but the mix is pretty bad too. Roger is
barely heard in some places, and in the background in all of the songs.

> Regards and Happy new Year,  Derick.

Hey, I'm just glad no one has said they were going to party like it's 1999
yet.