Re: Deconstructing Pete & Single Man Dilemma/Blues

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > So, I don't buy this lame "oh, he's always been
> > inconsistent" stance that some people are taking.
> > That's a cop out, in my book.
>
> But it's true! Occum's Razor, right Scott?

What?  Oh, I'm sorry.  I was dozing.  Occam's Razor, yes.  The simplest
solution is probably the correct one.  For example, should we believe 
that those fantastic miracles in the Bible actually happened, or are they
just fables & myths conjured up by mortal men.  Occam's Razor slices away
the miracles & leaves us with the probable truth:  man-made myths.

So, In Pete's case, what is the simplest solution or reason?  Should we
believe he's a pedophile, against all evidence that his life has entailed?
Or, do we believe he simply fucked up doing some research in his ongoing
quest of human suffering & human nature.  Occam's Razor slices away the
pedophile theory & leaves us with the probable truth:  Pete simply fucked
up.

But, Mr. Leaman, "the end" as you put it keeps being prolonged by Pete
himself!  We had let it die until Pete made that diary post.  Don't blame
Cousin Kevin!  Pete is the one who made the somewhat contradictory state-
ment.  And pardon us if we'd like to know what really happened; just as 
we pardon you in your outlandish refusals to go see what's left of The
Who play live.  We'll let you bitch if you let us bitch.  Deal?   

> It keeps getting brought up for the slightest reason. 

Slightest reason?  Pete's own words on the matter?

> I'm just tired of it. 

Wah!  Wah!  Cry if you want.

> I don't think he's a pedophile, no matter how bleeding many times he 
> visited sites. 

Neither do we.  We just want to know the specifics of what he actually
did.  We *thought* we had 'em, but the story seems to have changed.

> I don't care if his words don't completely agree with every little 
> thing he's said in the past...that is hardly newsworthy. 

I disagree.  This pedo-mess was the single most potentially damaging
event of Pete's career.  More than his hearing loss, more than his drug
use, more than his mood swings, more than the IRON MAN album (!).  This
is some big-time shit, my friend.  And a lot of it's still stuck to my
shoes.

> No, I'm sure he wants us to put his every statement under a microscope 
> and look for evidence he's hiding something.

What's wrong with examining Pete's words & statements?  That's what I've
been doing most of my life!

> Maybe we're all God.

Shit!  Then why don't I have a better car?

> Thou Art God. 

Thou Art Garfunkel.

> However I like it better than the live version. 

Really.  You like that HOUSE THAT TRACK BUILT "Young Man Blues" better
than any live version?  That's odd.  The studio version has no soul (!),
very little feel, & practically zero threat or power.

> It does have a power. 

Hardly.  It has mistakes.

> I especially like the strumming while Daltrey sings the verses, not 
> present on the live version. 

Well, you know why they did that don't you?  So when Daltrey re-did the
vocals he would have a tempo guide to better help him record the final
vocals.  Notice how he has to rush the very last vocal ("Nowadays, if 
you're the young man...." instead of "Nowadaaaaaaaaays, if...." like on 
live versions).

Anyway, I never really cared for that guitar strumming on the studio ver-
sion.  Takes away a lot of the organic quality of the song & it seems out
of synch, time-wise.

> I might have it tomorrow. If I'm lucky.

Yeah, we need your SACD-format opinion!  And quick!  Let us know if you 
hear a boost in bass & drums on the album proper.  I hear a better bass
dynamic on regular CD but the drums are still those cute little TOMMY drums
to my ears!


- SCHRADE in Akron

The universe is not hostile, nor yet is it friendly.  It is simply 
indifferent.
    - John Haynes Holmes, 1932