The Who Mailing List Digest V5 #245 -Reply

[Eric Tischler <EricT@ACA.ORG>]

>He wanted to use Dickinson's unparralled language skills

McGoo, I've disagreed with just about everything you've said thus far,
but this seems to be the most finite point of contention for me. You
mentioned Dickinson's great knack for adhering to rhyme schemes.
Personally, I've always felt that, by necessity, such strict adherence to a
rhyme scheme would ultimately limit true personal expression. You refer
to Pete's lazy rhyming, and while that's *occasionally* a problem (did
Dickinson ever have an off day? and if not, who cares?), I would also
point to the Shout, perhaps my favorite Pete song. It doesn't rhyme at all,
and it's beautiful and totally moving.
   To be more concrete, if your criteria for art is technical skill in a specific
discipline ("language skills"), then you're talking about craftsmanship, or
even plain ol' knowledge, not art. If you're talking about being moved by
somebody's creation, regardless of the means or style, then you're
talking art.  Is Dickinson a more clever (please excuse me) wordsmith
than Pete? I dunno. Sounds like she is. Does that mean she's brought
more beauty into the world? Nope.