Re: WBN, SO, Lifehouse, & Rog's follies

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

>> "This is magnificent, this idea and we have to have another go," and 
thats what produced the second incarnation of Lifehouse which produced 
"Who Are You" and another burst of activity on the script.

>I'm not denying that WAY was involved (in some way) with Lifehouse, but 
if you take each individual song by itself you'll see that it doesn't 
come close to fitting the story. Maybe New Song, but "oh BOY" if that's 
true.

What story?  The first one?  The second?  Or the current one?  Since 
it's never been published, it's not set in stone, much less print.


>So, like I said before, I know Pete has said this stuff...but I don't 
buy it. Now I think you can see why. I may not understand Lifehouse any 
better than anyone else, but certain things are clear. I do believe I 
could understand Lifehouse (all of us could), if only Pete would have 
stated it clearly instead of this today and that tomorrow.

It's his music and he gets to change it if he wants to.  Folks complain 
about the different versions of "Tommy", too.  That somewhat annoys me 
too, but I can see how it's justified, as it has to be adapted to 
different media and time requirements, and has to please the director 
and the target audience and such.  I can't complain too much, as the 
result promotes the music--and inspires Pete to try something else.  
Since "Lifehouse" has never been published, though, I'd actually expect 
Pete to update the story/script to nineties concerns rather than go with 
the script he wrote in the seventies.  Otherwise it would be pretty 
stale.


>Pete felt the band's past too heavy a burden, and it's all perspective 
since he SHOULD have seen it as an opportunity. However, with a strong 
solo career he probably felt freer without Rog & John demanding he do 
what they wanted to do (and he didn't).

WAY seems to be how he felt at the time.


>> Sounds like heavy metal to me.
>
>In those days before "Speed Metal," HM was still slow and ponderous. 
And Speed Metal appeared in the `80's.

Okay.  Sounds like speed metal, then.  Remember who we're talking about 
here.  The Who are trend setters, not followers.  The Who's sixties and 
seventies stuff, set to the faster Punk beat, and with the extra 
instrumentation added, predicted the speed metal sound of the eighties. 


>>Your concept seems to embrace popular music in general--is that right?
>
>No, Celine Dion (for instance) is not Rock music. Madonna either. Rock 
music can be traced from Blues to Chuck Berry/Elvis/Little Richard/etc. 
to the Beach Boys to The Beatles to The Stone & Kinks (still RnR or 
Blues), then MG was released and everything changed. Look at the music 
in the year 1965 as opposed to all the muisc which preceeded it.

Hmmm.  I can see about Celine Dion, but I thought Madonna was generally 
considered to work within the rock genre (as a marketing genius, though, 
she also works outside of it).


>> 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.
>
>As the Grammys last night illustrated clearly enough, Rock music is no 
longer very popular. Now it's extremely Pop and R&B oriented...for the 
moment, anyway.

Much of Pop and R&B could be considered a branch of rock, as could rap, 
actually, becuase of the rhythm track. (Actually, I wonder about the 
local Blockbuster's definitions, as they place The Chieftains in "Rock 
Music."  Go figure.)


>I maintain, against plenty of resistance believe me, that his songs 
broke the formula the bands were subscribing to...all strongly rooted in 
the Blues. Was he the only songwriter to do it? No, Lou Reed would also 
get credit (for one). But as far as I can tell The Who were the only 
band with a high enough profile to get it heard. 

Okay, I see what you mean.  I don't know that "invented" is the right 
word, though--maybe "opened the doors" for rock to become what it did.


>>There is a technique for large venues, but it doesn't allow for fine 
nuances of expression like studio albums do.
>
>I'd say that live performance allows for more nuances, they're just not 
as preconceived. And for me (at least), that's a GOOD thing!

Nuance by definition means something subtle, which is considerably less 
likely to be heard over the bass at a Who live performance.  I agree 
about the vitues of live performance, though--it's definitely a test of 
ability.  

keets

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