Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V5 #245

["Michael J. Pecoraro" <pecoraro_michael@jpmorgan.com>]

I've tried to stay out of this discussion, because it is obvious Mr. McGoo
does not have an open mind on the topic.

>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.

How can you see Pete Townshend as an average Joe?????? The man was an
enormous influence on Western music, and through this, on Western culture.
This is fact.  Regular Joe???!!!?????  What could you be thinking?

>  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.

It seems that you decided that Pete Townshend was trying to emulate Whitman
and Dickenson, and thaty he failed in doing so.  You also stated in
previous posting, that Townshend does not use symbolism the way that
Dickenson does - then why would you conclude that he is trying to emulate
her??!!!!??.  It is obvious that you have failed, making the ridiculous
assumption that Townshend was trying to emulate anyone.  He was trying to
make music, for God sakes.  This is what he is, first and foremost, a
musician; and I must break the news to you - music is art.  When you say
that it is just entertainment shows you to be extremely close-minded.

You wrote how Emily Dickenson described poetry giving her chills up her
spine.  This is exactly the feeling which much of Townshend's works evokes
in many of us.  His work is his songs (music + lyrics). Period.  If Pete
Townshend was writing poems which were not to be accompanied by music,
don't you think he may have written a few things differently? Pehaps?
Maybe?  His genious is using music (truly innovative and unique music)
along with lyrics to encapsulate emotions, and evoke them from his
audience.  I assure you that his ability to evoke emotions from people far
surpasses what Emily Dickenson's work could ever do.  Do not feel bad, Mr.
McGoo, Townshend is not working with just one medium.  This is bit more
complicated than what Emily did, mind you, so it is no surprise.  Granted,
he had the help of band members with most of his work, but he was the chief
composer, for certain.


>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 does not take a genious to be a bit creative with rhymes.  However, it
is clear that you have never listened and/or read Who lyrics, or that you
did so with such a closed mind that you missed hundreds of such "creative
rhymes". Allow me demonstrate a few off of Quadrophenia, from which there
are literally dozens.  I'm taken this from memory, so forgive me if any are
off slightly.


" I'm being put down
  I'm gettin pushed round
  I'm being beaten every day
  My lifes waning
  things are changing
  I'm not gonna sit and weep again

  My kharma tells me
  that you've been screwed again
  if you let them do it to ya
  you've got yourself to blame
  it's you who feels the pain
  it's you who takes the shame"

  (down - round, waning - changing, day - again, again - blame - pain-
shame)

" Every year is the same
  I feel it again,
  I'm a loser, no chance to win"
  (same - again)

"What is it?, I'll take it.
 Who is she?, I'l rape it"
  (take - rape)

You say she's a virgin,
well I'm  gonna be the first in"
     (virgin - first in)

"they finally through me out
 my mom got drunk on stout,
 my dad couldn't stand on 2 feet
 as he lectured about morality"
  ( feet mor-al-i-TY)

and now I guess the band is complete
 with me hanging round on the streets
 or here on the beach"
  (complete - streets- beach)

There are countless many others, on this album alone.  Perhaps you need to
here the way the lyrics are sung to appreciate the rhyme.  Anyhow, there
is no way you looked very hard.
Furthermore, you r above comment alludes to Dickenson overcoming an
obsticle when writing poetr, getting creative, or inventive.  If you want
to know what it really feels like to be in that situation - to have the
urge to write, but to hit obsticles, to get frustrated, and ultimately to
overcome - listen to "Guitar and Pen" on Who Are You (remember LISTEN - not
read).  I do not know if Emily wrote a quaint poem about these emotions,
but if she did, I would bet an infinite amount of cash that it cannot stand
up to song.


>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.


Why would you find this hard to believe?  Musically, Townshend is
innovative and at times, brilliant.  However, his real talent is writing
song (again - lyrics + music).  At the end of the day, this puts him far,
far, ahead of Whitman, Dickenson.    I have read critiques of Quadrophenia
calling it (quite accurately) the "greatest statement of personal anguish".
On that album, every emotion  young adults can ever have is portrayed
brilliantly.  You name the emotion, and I'll tell you the song on
Quadrophenia which exemplifies it.  I have seen no other work, in text, in
music, or in film that can make such a boast.  None other even comes close.

> His songs rarely mean anything other than what appears on the
> surface, where as Dickinson's often have several levels of meaning.

This is quite incorrect.  Although the majority of Who songs cut right into
to the throat of the topic, there are many examples of lyrics double
meanings.  Keep listening (hint - try the lines in "You Better you Bet"
about T-REX).

>Dickinson did NOT ever intend her poetry to
> be read by anyone, let alone used as entertainment.

You make Dickenson sound like a real quack.  If she didn't intend for
anyone to read her works, why did she write them down at all?  Are you
saying that it gave her personal pleasure to write things down, torment
over creating wonderful (genious you say) ryming schemes, just so she can
read them over and over herself? Was this entertainment for herself?  If
not, then what was it?  That is a picture of a sad human being that you
paint.  I doubt that it is completely accurate.  I would say that unless a
work (writing,painting,music, sculpturing) conveys something to OTHER
people, than it cannot be art.