re: genesis reference

[btm805@btrtx9.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de (B. Gramlich)]

Rich, Re:

> Defending Athena with a reference to Genesis. I knew that wasn't going to
> fly.

Yep.  Strange idea...

> By dragging in Genesis I trigger the reflex of about 95% of WHO fans who
> define "sucks" as anything by Genesis. (Well, the fans I know and love,
> anyway.)

Hm, I think the general attitude of Who fans towards Genesis more likely is
that early Genesis were a reasonable band whereas most of late Genesis's stuff
and all of PC's solo `efforts' suck.

If I had to define "sucks" to a Who fan by giving an obvious example, I would
rather think of Michael Jackson...  But that's just IMHO.

> So my comments on Athena were just a way of saying the song shared
> characteristics with a lot of songs that made tons of money back in the days
> of 45s and AM radio.

Really?  Which characteristics are you thinking of?

As far as I am concerned, Athena doesn't remind me of anything like Genesis or
early 80's pop groups.  In some way, it's a typical Who song - take e.g. the
vocal structure with a lead voice, a second voice for some verses in the middle
of the song, and a third voice in the chorus.  Some characteristics, however,
are neither typical Who nor typical pop, rather something new - see below.

> And a group with a fairly bland vocalist might have made a ton of money with
> a melody like Athena's, and its restrained backing track.

Well, you can't be serious here, right?  First of all, Athena doesn't have a
distinct melody.  It's a purely rhythm-driven song, supplemented by some short
and repetitive guitar and bass tunes, a couple of nice power chords and kind of
a horns solo.  Even the main vocals aren't really melodic, they rather sound
like Roger spitting out the lyrics to the strange beat of Kenny's drums.
Spoiled pop fans will also notice the lack of a prominent guitar solo or
anything else apart from Pete's vocals that could give Athena any melodic
feeling.

So your `fairly bland vocalist' (hope you aren't thinking of PC here?) would
have had a hard job to turn Athena into a pleasing melody.  I think that no one
other than The Who would have been able to make Athena a Top 40 Song, for it
really takes some rough and aggressive vocals like Roger's and the conviction
of an experienced band to express what Athena is all about.  A `fairly bland
vocalist' would only ruin the song.

In fact, the predominantly rhythmic vocals are one important reason why I like
Athena:  The seeming contradiction between the cryptic verses and the very
simple chorus strikes me everytime I listen to the song.  On the other hand,
I enjoy the minimalist melodic approach with emphasis on repetition and rhythm.
Sometimes I wonder whether Keith's more imaginative drumming could have
improved Athena at all - since the action in Athena takes place in the lyrics,
not in the music...

Just to insert my own stupid theory here (feel free to tear it to pieces):  I
think that Athena, together with Eminence Front, I've Known No War, and Why Did
I Fall For That, could have been the sixth revolution of rock music led by Pete
if only his band and his fans had been willing to follow him, resulting in
something I would call Progressive Rock.  But, with Roger and John longing back
to the old hard rock era, with the audiences shouting `Teenage Wasteland' over
and over again, and with Pete himself being busy with his personal problems,
this revolution failed, unfortunately.  The five successful revolutions were:
the introduction of the rock genre with My Generation, the breaking of its
limitations with A Quick One While He's Away, rock as an art form in The Who
Sell Out, psychodelic rock in Tommy (and especially the movie), and the
definition of hard rock with Who's Next and Quadrophenia.

> If nothing else, and there's plenty else, nothing sucks that has the
> powerful effort that Daltrey gave to Athena and to the rest of that album.

I agree with you as far as Who songs are concerned.  On some of his solo
albums, however, not even Roger's powerful effort could prevent songs from
sucking.

> Clear as mud?

Even less.  There's still some confusion left concerning your Genesis
reference.  But - maybe that's not so important...

Cheers,

Bernd