Re: Has Pete lost it?

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@akrobiz.com>]

> My point is, though,
> that Pete isn't a very good lyricist.  He's depending on something else
> to carry these songs.  

No way.  I'm sure Pete puts a lot of time & effort into his lyrics.  He's
an outstanding lyricist.  You've been listening to too much Aerosmith.

> About the mid-seventies he must have looked at what he was doing and
> thought, "Oh, I need to learn to write lyrics," and he started trying
> to work out songs in a different style.  

I'll agree he began a new approach to lyrics in the mid-seventies but to insinuate
that that's when he "learned" to write good lyrics makes me want to share some 
of that wine with you (Flirting?  Maybe.  Wait....is this keets or LB?  Doctor
Jimmy & Mr. Gin.  They *are* different, ya know.)

Anyway, so you're saying the lyrics to "Tattoo" suck.  Right?  Pre-mid 70's.
Before Pete "learned" to write.  Hmmmm....interesting.  "Our Love Was?"
Bad lyrics there, too?  "Sunrise," which y'all love so much?  Lame lyrics?
TOMMY?  You think TOMMY has shite lyrics?

C'mon, you're just winding us up, right?

> Actually, Pete did continue to work on the lyrics thing, and he does
> have a few songs around where he manages to construct lyrics with
> something of the same feel as the earlier Who hits--but they're very
> cool and intellectual observations.  There's a marked difference
> between the styles.

Well I'm glad *that's* obvious to you but why you don't see more of the
lyrical mastery I can't understand.

My turn to pour.


- SCHRADE in Akron