Re: Lifehouse & WAY, anyway

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

>I don't think so. The story is still great, and compelling, and as a
>Science Fiction fan myself, extremely interesting. I'd like to see it 
done, but only if done right. I'd hate to see it end up like some sort 
of Logan's Run or something.

I think the earliest storyline is out of date.  It leaned toward the 
Orwellian distopia, which has been pretty well done to death and 
abandoned for years by the SF community.  The subject of virtual 
reality/internet addiction and it's possible misuse by the government, 
though, is quite current.   


>The band and more specifically Pete set trends until 1973, but with WBN 
they went into a fall-back position. Nothing innovative on that album, 
or any which followed. A pity.

Still, people were watching, and even things the band didn't intend came 
across.  As known innovators, The Who are STILL likely to set trends.  
Recall that VH1 named them one of the most influential bands of 1998.


>> Hmmm.  I can see about Celine Dion, but I thought Madonna was 
generally  considered to work within the rock genre
>
>Some may, but it sounds like Dance music to me.

Hmmm.  Dance music isn't rock?


>Volume negates nuance?

More generally the screaming crowd does. 


>> RD is a pretty sharp guy, and likely no slouch in the brains 
department. 
>
>Hmmm...have you seen any of his interviews?

This is an interesting subject.  Interviews vary a lot.  I watched some 
on TV this year, plus have the usual on tape.  In general Pete 
interviews better than Roger, but not always, and neither of them looks 
as great as some people do (Pete says The Who would never have made it 
if they were starting out now, because they all look so bad on TV).  I 
notice the interviewer has a lot to do with how it comes out, and also 
the setting and the tech.  

Pete's strong point is that he's very articulate and comfortable talking 
in front of a crowd.  He generally does well with dim-witted 
interviewers, because you just wind him up and let him go.  The stupider 
the questions get, the funnier Pete gets.  He did look bad on Good 
Morning America this year, though, because the interviewer kept cutting 
him off.  All that came across was his appearance (not that great) and 
brief, half-finished comments.  When he's unhappy or uncertain about 
something, it shows. 

Roger isn't as comfortable talking as Pete is, so how he comes across 
depends more on the interviewer.  His voice is louder and harder, so the 
sound system has a lot to do with how he sounds.  On the other hand, I 
think he's better at faking it, and always the best bet if you're 
looking for enthusiasm.  Roger's best interview this year was also 
GMA--the one in Central Park where he had plenty of space, natural light 
and no make up (looked like he hadn't even shaved).  He also looked fine 
with Letterman, who asks provocative questions.  He looked least good 
with Conan, but then, that's no surprise.  I've actually seen him do a 
couple of live interviews, and, regardless of how he comes across in TV 
land, you can figure he looks and sounds okay to the studio audience.  
He's entertaining, too--listen to how he carries the audience in those 
TV interviews.

I read somewhere recently that Roger doesn't think he does good 
interviews.  If it's a problem, it might be worth practicing to see what 
comes across well.  I've thought a couple of times he should move the 
clip on mic down so his voice doesn't come across so loud.  You can tell 
when Roger's film interviews have been carefully set up.  I was 
impressed with the one for the HBO Quad.  Pete came across dour and 
neurotic, but Roger was all bright and cheery.  They had obviously 
worked at the lighting--his hair was the right color and his face wasn't 
heavily shadowed or stark--apparently a tough combination.  He was 
definitely the better spokesman for the show. 

keets

      


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