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

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

>I would *love* to have the opportunity to see Tommy played live.
>Particularly with Zak on skins.

Yeah, me too.  Would love to go see it at RAH, but I'm being realistic here.


>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.

Unlikely, especially as he's said it will be a solo project.  That doesn't 
mean he, or Roger, or John, don't have some other ideas to kick around.  We 
may end up hearing some new songs in work, only tacked on to the end of 
greatest hits (like last tour).


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

Actually, I don't know Mr. Hudolin.  I did think I recognized him as a 
kindred Vols fan, though.  Think he would take me skiing?  ;)


>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.

I thought he said he CAN'T write for The Who any more.  We've been trying to 
define why this might be, or maybe why he thinks this, for some time.  My 
idea is that he wants to intellectualize the song lyrics these days, when 
they should be more emotional and spontaneous for The Who.

Do you suppose somebody told him around 1978 that he was writing his songs 
all wrong?  He did say in some interview or other that TOMMY was too 
obvious, that it lacked subtlety.  What would cause him to think that?  When 
The Who is out there in front of several thousand screaming fans is no time 
for subtlety.


>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.

I don't think he should try to go backward--that's oldies stuff.  It comes 
out however it comes out.  After all, "Eminence Front" is a damn swing 
piece, and The Who does it really, really well.  They're ready for whatever 
he writes these days.  Just not too much subtlety, at least not on stage.  
;)


>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.

There's more than one way to do it, though.  They've said the demos for 
TOMMY were really sketchy, and the band put them together.  Later when Pete 
tried to do the whole thing himself, they were all bored and Pete was 
stressed out.  Is it possible to go all the way back, and let the band have 
more input into the process?


>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?

Nobody can add urgency to a song like RD, but he's always added a nonverbal 
component that's very important for The Who.  If he were to interpret the 
songs like Pete, we'd have Pete solo with The Who.  For Roger to express 
irony or sarcasm would undermine the top level meaning of the songs.


>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.

The Who doesn't have any problems with jazz these days.  I think they were 
taken a little aback by the style of FACE DANCES, but it didn't take long 
for them to pick it up.  John says he can't play jazz, but he does fine on 
Pete's whatever-it-is.

It's be interesting to hear The Who do PD, actually.  But it's going to be 
completely different.  Roger's not going to like having the witch in control 
at the end, either.  The hippy shit might be gone, but The Who still is.  ;)


>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.

I don't think it's necessary.  Did you like the Manchester "Crossroads Now?" 
  I think that's what Pete's into these days, and I'll be happy to listen to 
more of it.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx