RE: New Who Album

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

>??  Eh??  How do you know?  I think Pete can't *help* but be honest.  He 
>thinks, and writes.  Very little filter.
>
> >When Roger says they should go to the studio and have a "nice time," he's 
>talking about collaboration and improv, but Pete doesn't want to work this 
>way.  He want's to sit down and think.  So who's right?
>
>I tend to think Pete has a better grip on what process would work best and 
>produce the best result.

Remember that Pete is suffering from writer's block as far as The Who is 
concerned.  You'd gather Roger is suggesting they go back to the way much of 
TOMMY and MY GENERATION were put together, that is, Pete brings in a sketch 
of an idea and the band works on it.


>I like to think first, and then act.  Go in with a definite plan that has 
>room for some improv musically.

That's likely workable.  I guess there are different ways to write a song.  
People say they start with a lyric, or with a riff or whatever, and somehow 
end up with a song.  Pete always works the concepts, though, and I get the 
idea it's hard for him to consider an album of songs without that--plus I 
love it myself.  Pete's concepts are what makes the albums what they are.  I 
really don't think a straight rock album (with no concept) is going to 
contain the essence of The Who that everybody is looking for.  It would be 
fragmented and unorganized, something like Pete's Scoop albums--interesting, 
but not really meaningful.

>
> >On the other hand, Pete's lyrics seem to have suffered from over-working 
>in the last few years, so a little more improvisational-type freshness 
>would be just the thing.
>
>Don't agree.  Lyrics have suffered?  Don't agree.  I *do* agree that some 
>improv is a good thing.

Lyrics were what Scrade and I were discussing.  Schrade says it's the 
subject-matter, but I think it's the style and tone, too.  Compare "I've 
Known No War" to "Baba O'Riley," which we analyzed to death a while back.  
Is there any comparison in complexity?  In meaning?  Can we talk as long 
about "I've Known No War?"  As much as I love PSYCHODERELICT as an opus, 
there's no song in there that compares to "See Me, Feel Me" or even "And I 
Moved" as far as meaning goes.

> >And Pete doesn't work as well when he sits down and thinks--we've been 
>getting that artificial, over-worked quality to his lyrics since WAY, at 
>least.
>
>You need to qualify this.  How can one "improv" on lyric writing??  By the 
>sheer act, it must be thought out, right????????

Nah.  Pete's got no filter, remember?  Something provokes him, he opens his 
mouth and stuff falls out.

Maybe he doesn't do this as well as he did when he was nineteen, but it 
still works.  We saw it happen in Texas last year.  That was a full 
mini-opera he improvised, complete with at least three voices and several 
complex issues.


> >My picks for Pete's best work since WAY would be <snip>
>I agree with those, but Psycho-D has some wonderful lyrics in it as well. 
>It just needs (doesn't really need anything actually) the "oomph" that The 
>Who (raw, all electric and energized Who) brings to Pete's work.

Do you think so?  It's pretty understated, which I think lends to it's 
brilliance.  Here's the tone problem: it's very bitter and sarcastic, and 
it's unlikely Roger would sing it well.  You'd have to let Pete sing lead 
and Roger sing harmony in order to carry the meaning.

This may be where The Who and Pete have parted company, more so than 
anywhere else.  Schrade's right.  The latter-day Pete is bitter, and The Who 
are all about overcoming obstacles.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com