Exploring Lifehouse

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> The actual lyric is "naked, stoned and stabbed." (source: "Hooligans" CD
> lyric booklet).

Emily:

My mistake, but again "a difference which makes no difference..."
Although I would imagine John Wayne Bobbit might see it as a significant
difference...
The point is: he's there for the person the song is to, even in the
worst possible condition. He's willing to give all.

> It seems to me that you aren't being very consistent with your analysis.

Greg:

It's not a clear subject, because it's never been laid out so, but I'll
try to clear up my points (at least) for you.

> If you are arguing semantics here, then yes, "fight" and "fought" has two
> different meanings.

In context with the rest of the song there is no difference between
fight and fought. Other than a matter of when it might have occurred.
"Fought" would have been better, and "Work" better yet, because Pete
wouldn't have been repeating himself so quickly in the song. Rather
slack, but there you are...

> Or, if you analyzing these lines, then supposition **is** all you are doing.

Is there any more any of us can do, without knowing exactly what Pete
had in mind? And none of us do, last time I heard.

> Providing your own opinion of what these words means.

Almost everything on this list is opinion, and the real story of
Lifehouse will remain so until Pete lays it out. I didn't think one
needed to include "in my opinion" all of the time, since this is rather
obvious. I KNOW I've said I don't know exactly what Pete had in mind
several times!
Still, I enjoy thinking and writing about it, and trying to figure it
out.

> If you want my opinion, I think Pete's intent in using the word fight was a
> more subjective means to convey the idea of struggle and effort of reality
> (virtual, as you mentioned, or otherwise) against the fragility of the
> human condition.

Possible. Not what I got out of it, but possible. In my mind I get an
image of a group of people...like a small but modern tribe, of
sorts...sitting around a campfire. The singer is the leader...he is
attempting to get the tribe to move on. He's had a revelation, and would
lead his group somewhere. Oh, and he's disgusted with teenagers for some
reason. Maybe because they're into the virtual experience thing?
There's really not much more IN the song. He brags about fighting and
how he really has no need to...then it's "let's go, put out the fire and
don't look back!"
Action-oriented, yes I know. The words are action-oriented, after all.
Your take is focused less on the actual words, imagining them to be
metaphors rather than events. Neither of us have a bit of evidence to
back up our POV here. The problem, as both of us have pointed out, is
the words are not the action...so unable to follow a storyline and not
knowing exactly how each song fits into what we do know about the story,
we must extrapolate what the words might mean the best way we can. We
have to assume they at least relate to the story.
I know this much: BBE is a character (Brick) actually saying the words.
Bargain seems to be a direct plea, to a woman or a spiritual
leader...take your pick. The Song Is Over was to be the last song
according to reports, but it seems very clearly a song about an
abandoned love ("She was the first song I ever sang")...also explored in
Now And Then, BTW, so this might be an element of the Lifehouse story
never discussed. Too Much Of Anything again seems to be a character
speaking, not to mention Put The Money Down. And Going Mobile, too.
On the other hand, Pure And Easy seems to be an overview. And I can't
fit WGFA in there ANYWHERE, because while there is a revolution of
sorts...it's not "fighting in the streets."

> I think you are making a huge assumption here, that everyone believes the
> internet is a waste.

Now you are the one moving too fast. I said nothing about the Internet,
which is not what Pete was talking about from what I can see...not
unless you have a MUCH better computer than the rest of us! Me, I have
to read the words and use a keyboard...not experience things as if they
were reality.
Internet is a great information resource, as well as a fairly good form
of entertainment, and is often perverted (as is everything mankind get
its collective hands on) but hardly ever boring. Not really a form of
experience like Pete seems to have been describing. Have you ever read a
book called Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick? In
it, a virtual reality experience is described which seems to be much
more like Pete was trying to get across. In the book, one can "dial up"
their daily emotional state and feelings. In Lifehouse as I understand
it, the populous got their "therapy" and life experiences via the
"grid."

> Arguably, isn't life itself virtually real?

I think this isn't relevant to the topic. Maybe we should discuss it on
a philosophy mailing list?

> there is no indication that there was a
> defined rhetoric of virtual reality in place when Pete started writing this
> project.  I think you are taking for granted that the common understandings
> we have today regarding tools like the internet where certainly not in
> place in 1970-1.

No; I am using the info at hand regarding Lifehouse, which is what's
been written in several books as well as the 1996 BBC Lifehouse special
and even bits of PSYCHODERELICT, wherein it speaks of "experience
suits."
So I must say I've had plenty of indication Townshend was forseeing a
form of virtual reality yet unachieved. The Internet would be at best a
poor relation or an earlier form (and the only real relation would be
that it connects people world wide). The central computer grid as
described for Lifehouse is more like broadcast TV...only much more
personal an experience.
>From PSYCHO (dialogue version), in Early Morning Dreams:
"You will receive life programs that will precisely suit your needs and
desires. Slip onto the life experience grid today."
And later, someone who used the grid says:
"Pfew, that was some life. I wanted it to go on forever. And in the next
program we will get the balance we need to continue our evolution."
This, at least, supports my take on Lifehouse.

> I too have found limited materials in the subject, but if I recall, Pete
> has never had the financial support.  He has never had the creative
> support.  He has never had his management support him.

>From what I've read, this is mainly because everyone he tried to explain
it to was unable to understand it. Either because he couldn't articulate
it, or because the concept was beyond them (although one would think
Pete could find SOMEONE who was able to grasp it).
It's hard to believe a man who's made as much money as Pete
Townshend...and one who's been as successful...is unable to obtain
financial support for any sort of wild scheme he might imagine. To me,
making a movie of QUAD was a much more risky affair. To make a SF movie
during a time when SF movies are hot (both in 1971 and now) shouldn't be
a hard sell.

> My point here and to clarify what I stated before, I feel Pete's creative
> staging of his projects like, "Tommy" on Broadway, "The Iron Man" and even
> the minimal staging and theatrics he collaborated with Roger on the 96-97
> Quad shows, is a learning process

Again possible, although one might get the idea he's been rather
dragging his feet. These skills are not complex or unique, and even
given a very complex situation like Lifehouse is supposed to be...it's
been 10 years now since he embarked on this "learning" voyage and it's
about time he got with it. I don't know that touring QUAD for two years
(not that I'm complaining!) was necessary...it was best staged in MSG
(although best performed the next summer) for the first 6 shows.
I just have this feeling that if PT does make a Lifehouse movie, it will
be about as good as Man Who Fell To Earth. He should get a professional
to help him!

> But, I did want to makes sure that I was clear on a few items.

I hope now you find me equally clear.

> This is the place to Join Together, Let's See Action and all
> that standard Townshend-fare dogma.

Like the Young Vic was supposed to be. So who's going to be Bobby? Not
me.

> Hell, I say we all get together and make our own Lifehouse!  Forget
> Townshend.  I sincerely believe there is enough ideas, creativity and
> talent among the folks on this mailing list to put together one fine piece
> of work...who's up for it?

I'm quite sure that the story could be written clearly and then staged
within the general lines of what's presently understood to be the story.
The subtlies would have to come from PT, and florishes I suppose...but
it's not really all that difficult as it's been so far described to be.

-- 

    "He's more like Burger King than Martin Luther King."
                            Colt Fortifeinburg on Al Sharpton

                      Cheers                ML