Re: Even MORE lyrical sparring!

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>OK, then since Baba is part of Lifehouse, which was a concept album unlike 
>Tommy because the narrative wasn't to be driven by the songs themselves, it 
>would therefore seem that he was thinking it out, taking the story forward 
>(especially as it seems Baba was to be the opening song...don't you think 
>that would mean he planned to set the stage?

Not thinking it out, but feeling it out.  Once there's a general storyline, 
then the songs take shape based on possible events or glimpses of the 
characters during the journey to oneness.

Pete does return to the journey theme, BTW, and it must be an easy vehicle 
for him to use.  PSYCHODERELICT seems to have the strongest plotting of any 
of his full-length compositions, and it's the only one so far that seems to 
departs from the journey theme.


> > and the lyrics to "I've Known No War" are considered.
>
>I've got you on this one. We know Pete had been thinking long and hard 
>about this subject, as he speaks of it in the White City interview.

But that's the one I'm using as the opposite to "Baba" and "Eminence Front." 
  It's so overworked that any freshness or depth seems long gone, and 
there's nothing much left but the bald statement.


> > Remember that Pete was/is famous for nebulous, crazy ideas that take a
>
>Only Lifehouse falls into this catagory, and I think "nebulous" and "crazy" 
>might be descriptions from people who didn't understand it.

TOMMY and QUAD could be described the same way.  The storylines are very 
sketchy and the listener generally only follows the emotional high spots 
during performance.  It's only after some study of the lyrics that all the 
meanings begin to sort out.

I do think this is the difference between Pete solo and The Who.  Pete's 
latter-day solo work is more subtle, and doesn't have the emotional peaks 
that Who performances require.  Pete solo is good for a quiet, intellectual 
atmosphere (with low noise) where people can hear and think about what he's 
saying.


> > I'm not saying any of them are really bad.  Only that some are average.
>You don't really think all of them are on the level of "Baba O'Riley" and 
>"Won't Get Fooled Again" do you?
>
>No...who could hit that standard every time? But it's unfair to take his 
>best and then say it's the average, I think.
>Besides, Pure And Easy is better than either of them.

WHO'S NEXT does have a high ratio of genius to average, and that song 
definitely belongs on there.


>That's certainly the case! The early stuff was great but lyrically simple: 
>"I used to wake up in the morning/I used to feel so bad..." as opposed to 
>something like: ""And my heart starts gravitating when I think my guess was 
>wrong..."

A definite case of too many words obscuring the emotional content.


>Your scale on this is suspect. Besides, the right way to do it would be by 
>comparing it to what was being written by his peers the same year. Check 
>out the Stones in 1982 ("I'm not waiting on a lady/I'm just waiting on a 
>friend...") or the Kinks ("I've been around the dial so many times but 
>you're not there/Think I'll sell my radio now that you're not there...").

Just because it's a more serious subject doesn't mean it's better.  And BTW, 
just because this particular song seems average doesn't mean Pete didn't do 
some pretty good work for IT'S HARD.  There are a couple on there that I 
think are among his best.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp