Re: Who Are You, anyway?

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

> I cannot see how the WAY songs fit at ALL. Then, too, there was
>a BBC special on Lifehouse...which included many WN songs but NONE of 
the WAY songs. Which I'll admit may mean nothing. I just have a feeling 
the WAY songs have nothing to do with Lifehouse. I think as far as the 
philisophical core of the story, that would be in Pure And Easy.

Here's an excerpt from the special Brian mentions, stolen from another 
list.

>Pete:  I did have an attempt to help Glyn understand what we had been
doing with Lifehouse, but he…The point is that nobody did except the 
guys in the band.  The guys in the band tried very, very hard to 
understand it.  And in some cases, I think with Roger for example, Roger 
finally got it a couple of years later and came running to me and said, 
"This is magnificent, this idea and we have to have    another go," and 
that’s what produced the second incarnation of
Lifehouse which produced "Who Are You" and another burst of activity on 
the script.


>Hmmm...I never saw reincarnation in any interpretation of Lifehouse. It 
was my understanding that the people ascend together, but nothing I've 
seen has them coming back. I'm not saying it's not an element...PT had 
certainly considered the concept (You Came Back), but is it part of the 
Lifehouse story?

It has to do with the experience suits, wherein (apparently) people get 
trapped into reliving the same life over and over.  This really is a 
brilliant concept.  Most of us have experienced repetitive episodes in 
our own lives, and Pete must have been feeling trapped with a vengence 
right about then and looking for a way out.  This corresponds, of 
course, to Siddhartha's observation that there must be some way out of 
the grind of endless reincarnation and his discovery of way to ascend.


>But not here. I think he quit for the very reasons he stated at the
>time...he didn't want to turn into a parody of the band, endlessly
>recycling the "same old song with a few new rhymes." He was writing 
Siege during the `82 tour, but he had to see that he would be endlessly 
trapped into being an "oldies" band and I believe he has asperations 
beyond that. This reasoning has been an element in every interview I've 
seen where he addresses getting the band back together.

This is the same thing I said.  He quit because the fans rejected his 
efforts to find a new direction.



>> It was lots faster, which forced a softer sound.
>
>I'd say that was a result of Punk, and standard practice at the time. 

Sounds like heavy metal to me.


>> Check out the Juilliard Orchestra playing his music and tell me that 
again.
>
>Orchestras adapting Rock music is not what we're talking about here. 

Sounds like Aaron Copland to me. (Which sure ain't rock music.)


>Oh, yeah, I listen to all sorts of music...after all, I'm sitting here 
surrounded by thousands of CDs for about 50 hours a week. I have Jazz 
days and Blues days each week, for instance. And there's no way to study 
any sort of music in a vaccuum.

Radio jock?

>
>RnR, yes; Rock, no. Rock is encompassing, and a larger genre than any
>other. Many beats, any instrument, incorporating all known forms of 
music. Remember, I study Rock music...not RnR, which is merely a 
sub-genre of Rock. The Who never were a RnR band. The closest them ever 
came was playing My Generation Blues on the 1975/76 tour.

Thanks for the definition.  It helps if we're talking about the same 
thing.  Your concept seems to embrace popular music in general--is that 
right?  Excluding classical, serious contemporary, straight ethnic, and 
traditional jazz and blues?


>Show me another form of music PT wrote/performed in which he was 
successful at creating new forms...which is what he did in Rock.

According to your definition, I don't think he's ever left the rock 
genre, as he still tries to sell in the popular marketplace.  I actually 
think The Who has been responsible for breaking down some of the 
barriers between popular and classically trained composers.


>> PT doesn't conform very well to any genre.
>
>He DID invent Rock, the most encompassing of all genres. So I'd say he 
defined it.

Invented it?  I don't think so.  He was part of the effort, but other 
bands have been just as broad-minded and progressive.


>That's my point. WAY was an inferior performance.
>
>> And it's different situations.  All LAL required was volume.
>
>No, no, NO! YMB is more than just "volume," for instance, and then 
there's the TOMMY section...no, I don't subscribe the the idea that 
volume was all there is to one of the greatest live albums ever 
released!

Okay, this WAS hyperbole.  There is a technique for large venues, but it 
doesn't allow for fine nuances of expression like studio albums do.


>> He's struggling with the technique.
>
>Hell, he had plenty enough time to get it right or adapt. Why release 
an inferior product, unless that's the best you can do? Especially when 
you're Pete Townshend!

Roger still struggles with the technique, and I think you're right that 
it's sometimes too obvious or not quite right for the song.  But RD 
doesn't want to be confined to one genre any more that PT does, so he's 
found different ways to sing depending on the situation.  (Looks like 
he's out to conquer Broadway just lately.) I mean, how many openings are 
there for 55 year old rock singers?  

keets





______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com