[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Face Dances , drums, Pete's valley
> My beef was that he didn't seem to fit.
But I think a lot of it was Pete's *songs* not fitting the mold, either.
All the negative comments get lumped on Kenney & very few people want
to acknowledge the source of the problem: Pete's songwriting.
> What puzzles me is that sometimes he did, like on the Tommy soundtrack
> when he played "I'm Free"
I still hold to my theory that Kenney's approach to *each individual song*
was based on Pete's demos. It's just a hunch of course, but I'd bet
Kenney, when playing with The Who, was most worried about satisfying Pete.
So, perhaps if Pete got a little crazy on drums on a certain demo, Kenney
followed suit. If Pete incorporated a stiff drum beat on other demos,
again, Kenney followed suit.
> Keith just had it come from within him like fluid or something. That's
> the difference to me. He's a different person and it comes across.
Well, you'll get no argument from me on that. Keith was completely un-
ique (and still is, to this day) & Kenney came nowhere near capturing
his feel.
On a similar topic, I was at a bar last night, drinking myself to death,
& I thought, "Does Keith Moon swing?" Not swing as in orgies, but swing
as in.....Charlie Watts.
The bar I was at, which has a dance floor, occasionally plays a Who tune.
One might hear "I Can't Explain" or "My Generation" - but it got me to
thinking, "Are there any good Who tunes to dance to? What songs does
Moon provide a 'dancy' swing beat that would encourage actual dancing?"
Does Moon swing? I know he pummels. I know he thumps. I know he jack-
hammers. I know he drives. But can anyone think of a good example of
Moon providing a danceable swing-type beat? A Who song which, if played
at a dance club, would fit seamlessly in between, say, David Bowie's
"Modern Love" & the Stones' "Jumpin' Jack Flash?"
> He (Zak) does have a feel closer to Keith, but not the same either.
Agreed.
> Are you saying that we don't even have a soul?
Not in the religious sense of an "entity" separate from our physical
bodies. That's a load of rubbish. A lie.
> Then what animates our being?
Our minds, our emotions, our needs, our desires.
> What do we feel emotions with? What do we consider with?
Our minds. You do a disservice to the wonderful complexity of our brains
(a complexity gained through evolution) by implying that emotions are of
some "higher realm" than physical reality.
I see a hot chick - electrodes fire in my brain (and also, one might say,
in my crotch!) I get hungry - electrodes fire in my brain. I feel con-
tent - electrodes fire in my brain.
This doesn't make my feelings & emotions any less real. But what it does
accomplish is it provides an actual testable hypothesis concerning human
feelings & emotions *without having to rely on untestable or unprovable
reasons & ideas.*
Go to the library & pick out a few scientific books on the human mind,
emotions, & so forth. There's no reason to invent things to explain the
human mind - *if* you are willing to learn the facts & the truth.
However, if you feel life wouldn't be worth living without the comfortable
but completely baseless idea of a "soul," existing separately from our
physical bodies, then, by all means, keep believing the lies that were
written down by men in a backward age, before the light of science & know-
ledge had yet to illuminate the world.
> These two trees are the two sources in the universe. This is a *major*
> fact.
Excuse me, but "facts" can be proven to a high degree of probability.
Please refer to me the scientific study which confirms to such a degree
your "two trees" theory.
- SCHRADE in Akron
The Council For Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/
Faith: not *wanting* to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche