RE: Set List, Hud, My ass, privacy, Pete's writing

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>]

>From: "Jeff House" <whocasa@hotmail.com>
>Subject: 2002 RAH and US tour set lists
>
>How about 2 nights in various cities (of course, Boston would have to be
one 
>of those):  Tommy on night 1, standard Greatest Hits (more MG than 
>Lifehouse) on night 2?  Yeah!  I like that, baby!

I would *love* to have the opportunity to see Tommy played live.
Particularly with Zak on skins.
I can't see it though.  I don't know why.  I have this bad feeling in my gut
that tells me this coming summers tour will be bashed by the press if it's a
repeat of 2000, or if it's Tommy (again).  A good bashing by the press will
kick Pete back into the "fog it!" attitude.
What's left to do?
I sincerely hope that some new stuff is unveiled this summer.
I think a concentration of very old and obscure stuff like from MG and SO
and O&S, mixed with few required greatest hits may keep the wolves at bay.
Personally, I'd rather see Pete's new project The Boy Who Heard Music
unveiled live this summer.  But, the timing seems to indicate that isn't
possible.

I'm nervous.

>From: "Hudolin, Stephen" <HudoliS@dtees.com>
>Subject: RE: Pete Interview
>I'll give you a call soon.
>Hud
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	L. Bird [SMTP:pkeets@hotmail.com]
>> Sent:	Wednesday, January 02, 2002 1:36 AM

Hud and Kee-eets sitting in a tree.........smoo-chy smoo-chy hee-hee-hee

(Jesus kevin, where the ef did that come from) (thought to self ;)

>From: Sigel James Civ 10 ABW/LGCW <James.Sigel@usafa.af.mil>
>Subject: Pete Porcupine?/Kev's Ass/Political Swine/AEBastard/Joe Walsh/Bla
aahh
>
>All this talk is making me wonder about Kev's ass now.  

Nothing to wonder about.  Two cheeks and a tootsie roll center.  ;-) (I can
get as gross as the next guy).

>Although doing that would ruin my image of Scott as
>Kermit...  the price we pay for visual associations.

Kermit????  I thought Schrade was Animal!?!
I want Cookie Monster!

>AEB - C'mon, don't start threatening to forward ANYTHING
>people write on this list to their employers <snip> Not to mention the
freedom one feels on this >list to voice
>their opinions gets pulled out from under them with such a threat.  

Pretty eye opening post that was AEB.  Hope you don't really mean it.  What
happened to good 'ol fisticuffs?  Queensburry rules and all that jazz?

>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: New Who Album
>
>Remember that Pete is suffering from writer's block as far as The Who is 
>concerned.  

Has he or anyone in The Who stated this?  I've simply felt that he doesn't
try to write for The Who anymore.  Has other interests.

>>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.

I'm leaning more to subject-matter, with style and tone being influenced by
said subject-matter.  Pete has not been a rock writer for a while.  He has
been clearly into jazz formations and expressions.  I'm thinking, with a
good effort, Pete will again be able to write rock.  Not fair to compare
apples to oranges.

>Nah.  Pete's got no filter, remember?  Something provokes him, he opens his

>mouth and stuff falls out.

Yes, but is this done in the studio on the fly??  I say no.  Pete does this
in private and brings to band.  Look at all past demo's we've been privy to
over the past 3-4 years.  Clearly Pete constructs and then presents to The
Oooo.

>Do you think so?  It's <Psycho D> 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.

Roger can't sing bitter and sarcastic???  You mean like Dr. Jekle, or 5:15,
or My Way, or WGFA, or Substitute, or MG, or..or..or, or just about all Who
songs?

>You'd have to let Pete sing lead 
>and Roger sing harmony in order to carry the meaning.

Really, while I argue with you, I'm playing devils advocate.  What makes
psycho-D a work not suited for The Who (not totally convinced of that
thinking) is that it's jazz, and not rock.

>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.

Yeah, but bitterness is felt when running into obstacles.  I don't buy the
above statement.  The Who has always been bitter too.  I really don't see
any grand personality change in Pete (Pete=The Who).  It's a musical change
that began with WAY, continued with FD and IH, and was last seen with
Psycho-D.
Looks like Pete may be willing to go back for some pre-WAY rock on this next
project.  At least that's my hope.

Kevin in VT