[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Everyone's Favorite Thread: FD & IH



> > FACE DANCES is an experiment in production style that turned out
> > inappropriate to The Who.
>
>I agree - the production seems too....light (?) for The Who.  But it's more 
>than just the production (and drumming style) that's wrong with this album.

I agree that it's also the songs.  I'll defer to Bill for the reason.  
They're too wordy, which obscures the symbols and emotion that had always 
supported The Who's passion.  I gather that someone told Pete he should 
write songs this way--that what he had been doing was too heavy-handed.  But 
shoot, you have to have something heavy-handed to play stadiums.  Delicate, 
intellectual puzzles just aren't going to fly.


> > I'm one of those people that has to like the music before the lyrics,
>
>Oh, you're one of *those* people. :-)

Yeah, and David Gilmour said I was right.  :)  Music is the structure that 
the songs are built on, right?  Otherwise they're poems instead.


> > and none of the music on this (until the live bonus tracks) grabs my 
>attention.
>
>Yes, the live versions do add some chunkiness & power that the studio
>versions lack; but that's because many of the FD studio tracks have limited 
>guitar because A.) Pete's guitar was mixed low or B.) Pete only played a 
>lighter sounding guitar track for the cut.  Same with IH.  Then, when you 
>hear the songs played live, the glorious guitar gets it rightful position 
>in the forefront.

Is this because Pete wanted to get away from playing guitar and lean more on 
the keyboard?


> > Therefore, I can't hear the lyrics at all.
>
>You hear 'em....they just don't engage you, right?.

No, really I don't hear them.  I tune them out.  I've yet to hear those 
songs on FACE DANCES.  That's just me, though.  I know people who like 
Pete's finished "How Can You Do It Alone" better than the live track.


> > I don't think you can blame all this on Pete's solo career, however.
>
>No, but you can blame a lot of it on that.  Until he began writing sucky 
>songs for his solo albums as well.

When do they get sucky?  Is there a particular date, or a particular album?

On some of the solo albums, I don't quite understand where he's coming from, 
but he continutes to have moments of brilliance.  He definitely got more 
obscure, though I don't know if I'd call that sucky.  In trying to avoid 
that heavy-handedness, he's written songs that almost need an explanation in 
the liner notes:  "I was feeling like this today..."  They sound good, but 
they're in such personal code that I don't understand what the hell he's 
talking about.

(BTW, I think Simon and Roger have tended to write songs like this, 
too--they're very private and obscure, and lack the symbolism that would 
make them universal.)


> > Moon's death took the heart out of the band.
>
>Right, but I still get off on Pete's *demos* to certain Who songs (and 
>non-Who songs).  And he's the drummer in the majority of those cases!  Talk 
>about stiff & pedantic!  And the production!  But it's the songs themselves 
>that hold the beauty.

Examples?


>Pete should've written:  "It's the song not the singer that makes the music 
>move along."  Of course he needed the rhyme, so he flipped it thereby 
>making the statement ironic & sarcastic.  (Let me have my theory, please.)

He's talking about Roger's personality, I'd say, or else the general role of 
the frontman to keep the energy flowing.  But you're right that the frontman 
needs good music and good ideas to stay inspired.


> > They may have meant to make a new start, but they didn't know where to 
>go.
>
>Agreed.  Atleast Pete lost the vision.

I'm not sure he did.  He was definitely limping along, but the songs played 
well in concert.  The studio albums were weak, but once Roger and John got 
up to speed on the new direction, they did very well.  The live "Eminence 
Front" is gorgeous.


>And he was (and is) the captain of the ship.  Daltrey being 
>his....................first mate.

Heheh.


keets