Re: Pete is the superior

[Brian <bmcgow01@wild.vill.edu>]

Good day all.  I just wanted to answer some of your objections.  I figure that
you are entitled to my take on things.  First off, someone seemed to be
wondering why I decided to attempt to dethrone the mighty Townshend, so I will
start there.

I refuse to believe things that I am told to believe.  I will not be convinced
of something until I have convinced myself, and I have yet to convince myself
that Mr. Townshend is anything more than an average Joe with an above average
talent for writing.

Off we go into the Wild Digitized Yonder:

> Hitler was too damned successful at his goal,
> unfortunately.

Just had to say here that Hitler was indeed a failure in so far as he failed at
every major political move he made between 1937 and 1945.  He did kill a lot of
people, make a lot of money and temporarily helped Germany's economy, but in
the end he was just a failure.

> And if he did, he'd be imitating her and you'd have no respect for him blah
> blah blah.

That is just silly.  I don't know what else to say; it is just absurd for you
to accuse me of this.

> The problem with your claim is Dickinson was a more limited artist than is
> Townshend. For she worked ONLY with words, while Pete works with both words
> and music to create his Art.
> Uh, I guess that makes Townshend the superior artist!

Here you are half-right.  Townshend is indeed a more DIVERSE writer.  Dickinson
was not a muscian (although most of her poems are written in a meter intended
to be sung).  However, Dickinson was a genius with words, where as Townshend
was a little above average with them.  I will try to explain this.  When
Dickinson ran into a situation she was having trouble with (i.e. not being able
to find a suitable rhyme), she would invent herself a solution.  If a suitable
rhyme were alluding her, she would create a rhyme (i.e. by using like rhymes,
eye rhymes, exact ryhmes, vowel rhymes, suspended rhymes, etc.)  Because
Townshend never does this in any of his work, that I am aware of, it would be
very difficult to suggest that he even comes close to her level of genius with
words.  It is also fair to suggest that Dickinson could never have hoped to
reach his level with music; however, I find it hard to believe that Townshend's
musical ability levels him out, let alone puts him ahead, of Dickinson.

> He was the first who strayed from the proven formula of Chuck
> Berry/Blues structured Rock N Roll. Pretty damned innovative, if you ask
> me. He invented Heavy Metal and the Punk mentality all in one stroke (or
> should I say "strum"). He changed Rock music more than any other artist you
> can name. Etc. etc. etc.

Here you are very correct.  However, Whitman ignored and threw out ALL the
conventions of his day.  In response to the Genteel Tradition of Poetry in the
middle of the 19th century (this tradition was composed of several poetic
standards: flowery language, idealistic subjects, strict rhymes schemes,
optimism, sexulaity was not discussed, and a few more things that have slipped
my mind), Whitman ignored them all.  He wrote about sex, pessimistically, in
common language free verse.  While Townshend did change things, they were by no
means even close to as dramtic as the changes Whitman made.

> But not a hundredth the musician, as far as I can tell.

He did play the trumpet.

> I do not like Whitman, but I love Dickinson.
>
> I don't see this as relevent at all.

I was just trying to make sure no one thought, falsely, that I like Whitman.
He makes me puke almost as quickly as Faulkner.

> Try comparing I Can't Explain to Pure And Easy and tell me again how he
> didn't progres...

I don't have the time to do this now, but I promise I'll have it for you
tomorrow.

> How about if it makes one sick to one's stomach? What does that mean?

I'm sorry you have such a poor view of the highest form of non-visual art.  I
truly am.

> "If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high, you'd laugh
> and say 'Nothing's that simple!' But you've been told many times before,
> Messiahs pointed to the door. No one had the guts to leave the temple."

"'Faith' is a fine invention/ When Gentlemen can see-/ But Microscopes are
prudent/ In an Emergency."  #185

> Have the guts, McGoo!

I have never been accused of lacking balls before.  Keep in mind I'm the one
who started this argument, and it's me against everyone else.

> > Amateur what….writer, poet, artist, philosopher, musician, songwriter,
> > composer….?
>
> I think we have to grant Pete is a professional all the way down the line.
> If Whitman and Dickinson didn't get any money for their work, then I guess
> THEY were the amatuers...

I was not suggesting that he wasn't a true professional, because he certainly
did make money from his songs, I was comparing his skill level.  If the world
of poets is divided up into layers, and I think it is, Dickinson would be on
top, Whitman on the level below her and Townshend would be somewhere in the
middle.  The problem with comparing mere mortal, Townshend, to a God,
Dickinson, is that even the best work of a mortal is still just amateurish
compared to a God's greatest failure.

> > No, I don't believe Pete is better than Emily

There is a glimmer of hope in this cruel, dim world of ours!


> No symbolism?  Hmmm.  Then what's the Acid Queen?  The Empty Glass?
> "Drowned" seems to be a fairly decent metaphor.
>
You seem to be confusing imagery and symbolism.  The Acid Queen, and all of
Tommy, is full of imagery, but mostly devoid of symbolism.  The Empty Glass is
indeed one of his few symbols, albeit a weak and obvious one.  And unless I'm
missing something big, Drowned is just imagery again.  If it is metaphorical it
comes at the wrong point in the story.  It should be near the beginning, not
near the end if it is intended to be a metaphore for something.  By the end of
a story, it is too late to start drawing philosophical connections.


> I'm not a big poetry fan, but Whitman doesn't sound right either. You'll
> have to come up with somebody who deals in social issues.  Sandburg,
> maybe?
>
  I wasn't comparing there subject matter, so much as I was comparing their
styles.  I always felt that Townshend tried to write like a combination of
Whitman and Dickinson.  He wanted to use Dickinson's unparralled language
skills, with Whitman's mysticism.  Townshend took a bite WAY to big to be
chewed, he had no chance to pull this one off.

For your information, Whitman was extremely concerned with social issues.
Probably even more so than Townshend.  He quit several jobs over the slavery
issue, and wrote about the equality of all people long before Townshend, and
the civil rights movement, was born.


> > > I enjoy The Who.  But I enjoy them for what they are, entertainment.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but essentially so, is Emily….
>
  Oh, I see it's been a long time since high school English.  Dickinson did NOT
ever intend her poetry to be read by anyone, let alone used as entertainment.
She wrote 1775 poems in her lifetime, only seven stanzas were published,
anonymously, in this time.  She NEVER considered herself an entertainer, and it
is not fair for us to think of her that way either.


> Do you think it is fair to compare Whitman with Dickinson or for that
> matter, Hemmingway, etc?  What is the point?
>
  If it isn't fair, I wrote my entire undergraduate thesis in vain!  Where were
you when I needed you?!?!  All things are comparable to other things.  This
true especially with art, because there is no other way to deal with it.  While
you may not like the comparisons, they are all valid, because in many ways
Townshend attempted to write like them.

One final point:  When you have a Ph. D. you may spell words any damn way you
feel like!

Sorry for the length, but I figured you wanted to get all of your points
addressed, I know I would.

-McGoo