Goodbye Sister Techno, Whofest mudwrestling, & Conceptual mayhem

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

> I just can't see a relation between ELP and techno music aside from the
> use of synthesizers.

Lucas:

BIN-go! There is no other relationship, however there is similarly no
relationship AT ALL between The Who's songs and Techno, so ELP wins the
toss.

> This was discussed before and some central location like Detroit or
Chicago
> seemed to be the most popular location.

Alan:

Those cities are hardly "central" to someone in the southern part of the
country, be it California or Florida. Try Kansas City if you REALLY want to
be central.
However, what we're talking about is a gathering of fans not a convention.
I don't see why this cannot be just because we can't get Irish Jack or a
Who member to attend. Remember how much fun the pre-shows were? Well, this
would be just the same, except (hopefully) with more attendees. Are we to
be denied meeting each other simply because we cannot rent a hall and have
special guests?
I'm on the east coast, you're in the middle of the country, and someone
here is in California...any reason we can't have three Whofests? Or ten?
Let us not kill this idea merely because it cannot be the size and
complexity of a Star Trek convention, OK? Myrtle Beach is a place for
people to vacation, which is after all what we're talking about here...and
it DOES have the Baba Center, the first ever in the US and one PT comes to
every time they tour. There are people here who know him personally, and I
have spoken with the Baba Followers about a tour and found them more than
happy to have us. That is one very good reason to have an east coast
gathering here, as opposed to say NYC.
You have yours, in Chicago if you wish (althugh that means I'll owe you the
beers still), and we'll have one here. There can be another in LA or SF or
wherever. No problem!

> feel i must jump in, if my comments are unwelcome i'll shove off
uninsulted.

Jeffree:

You and anyone else who wants to discuss it is welcome. This IS a
discussion forum, after all! The more the better, say I.

>         Except Pete DID have a story for LIFEHOUSE, which he hoped the
songs
> would tell.

Incorrect. He did have a story...does have a story...but the songs were
never meant to tell it. They were to be in the background, to add to but
not tell the story. According to Pete himself. Some did end up being more
of the story than he may have intended, like Going Mobile and Behind Blue
Eyes, but he said at the time Lifehouse was NOT to be like TOMMY where the
songs were the story.

> i mean. Pete's ultimate solo statement: "The sea refuses no river, and
right
> now this river's banks are blown." Paul's: "Some people want to fill the
> world with silly love songs, what's wrong with that?"

Couldn't have said it better myself, even if I had given Paul a bit and
said Ebony And Ivory was his ultimate statement...even so, it's an
"everyman" statement rather than an intellectual concept. I mean, racial
equality...DUH!

>     You know, i never have gotten into them. i bought "Pet Sounds"
several
> years ago, gave it several listens and sold it to a used CD place.

(GASP!) Although I do approve of the used CD place part. Good man!

> Overproduced complicated bubblegum frat rock remains such no matter how
cool

It's not overproduced...it's perfectly produced, as the stereo version
shows clearly. You may not like it, as is your right, but that doesn't mean
it's not a definitive Rock album...it is. Few had more influence, for
instance. It might be the single most unisexual Rock album, too (which is
not the same as nonsexual or bisexual). The feelings expressed on PS are as
universal as it gets. Much like In My Room, an earlier Wilson classic. Even
Pete was unable to divorce himself from a sexual viewpoint (few people ever
are).

>     Okay, i love "Exile" (also a rock critic's bible opinion, but one i
> agree with). But how is this a conceptual album? What cohesiveness (other
> than exploring their blues influence) am i missing here?

You've got it, only it's not ONLY their Blues roots but their roots
entirely. Country, Gospel, and so on. I do not believe they planned to do
it as a concept, but that's how it turned out. Or ALMOST a concept album,
as I said before. Sonically, not by any storyline.

>       Um, i'll not comment on the "Flat Earth" thing, except to say that
you
> should look it up, it's not literal.

The point remains.

> kinds of stuff, but I think most of the songs sound like "Kokomo".

Carl:

Kokomo wasn't written by Brian Wilson, but instead to copy the Wilson style
of writting. Much like Dave Edmunds' Beach Boy Blood. PS was not overrated
at all, but underrated at the time. Any album which inspired SGT PEPPERS
cannot be classified as "overrated."

> Catch my previous post on "White City?"  If PT had included the movie 
> script on the album, then it would have come out something like 
> "Psychoderelict."

Keets:

The songs are not the story, however. They are instead a background;
further information if you will. They add to but don't tell the story.

> Isn't there a story involved in "Lifehouse"?

Explained above.

> Well, I surf a lot and catch the tail end of stuff.  This was some young 
> guy, and so likely more popular than the slightly more prolific 
> Townshend.

I don't know that taking longer to write a song is a good thing. Sounds to
me like he has some kind of problem with it. Just because it takes a year
doesn't make it a better song. Some of the best songs were (according to
interviews) written in ten minutes. Inspiration cannot be forced. Trying to
can (in fact) devalue a piece of Art.

> Hmmm.  This implies that you have to preplan the whole thing.  It's not 
> always done that way.

Examples, please. I think a concept album implies that the songs are
written to further the concept. If no concept exists when the songs are
being written, the entire thing breaks down (you see). Townshend did tend
to bring in songs he'd already written, BUT he also changed them to suit
the story (not vice versa).

> We haven't come up with any hard definition yet

A hard definition is: an album with songs which further or compliment a
planned unifying theme.

> but WAY strikes me as 
> fairly conceptual.  All the songs have to do with birth/rebirth/retread, 
> a unifying theme.

I'll refer you back to the hundreds of thousands of "love" concept albums
this would mean exist. BTW, ALL of the songs do not have this theme. Sister
Disco, Music Must Change, Who Are You, and Guitar And Pen all have to do
with the music industry in some manner. WAY itself is about a real-life
encounter with members of the Sex Pistols (I'd like to see how you think
that ties into Lifehouse). Love Is Coming Down is just a song about love,
and not the greatest one in the world either. If you want to include
Entwistle's songs, then Trick Of The Light is about visiting a hooker!
JEEEZ!
So much for the concept...you're left with three songs (two of which were
written by John).

> I rather think they continue to progress, only in directions some fans 
> don't particularly care for.

I agree with you up to QUAD, but like I know Jazz I also know regression
when I hear it. No new ground was plowed by The Who after QUAD.
Unfortunately. WNB, however good the songs are, was (as PT said at the
time) a retreat to WN (without the synthesizers this time). Why? Because he
was spooked by the lack of success of what he knew was his greatest work.
It is my belief that the "failure" of QUAD was the main reason Pete wanted
to end The Who. It began there, at least. He didn't have the guts to embark
on a solo career and actually end the band YET, but he definitely was no
longer trying to take the band forward. He began dwelling on their
limitations rather than their scope.
So with WBN he attempted to repeat the success of WN rather than progress
like QUAD.

> How does this describe a primal scream?  Do you mean the abilities 
> within are what make RD's voice what it is?  That's the same thing I 
> said.

Except I'm celebrating it and you were saying it wasn't great.

> Check further back, though.  Even on "Tommy," he sounded like he was 
> working at it pretty hard.

I think on TOMMY his "true voice" had started to emerge. Listen to Smash
The Mirror, for instance. And live he was already there; Fillmore East 1968
proves that (not to mention numerous earlier live material). He just wasn't
doing it on album, for whatever reason...might have been because there was
still a "Pop music" mentality (thanks to The Beatles) which would render a
Rock voice non-commercial. Remember, in 1968 Dylan was a still a success
mainly via other people's versions of his songs.

> I rather like the idea of the WAY version, the incorporation of the 
> Eastern salvation philosophy.  That gives it more depth as an 
> intellectual piece.

You mean in Trick Of The Light or Love Is Coming Down? WHAT Eastern
philosophy??? Reincarnation, is that what you mean? 
A) That's not specified in ANY of the songs, so you are reaching to include
it B) that is only ONE aspect of the philosohy, and the other elements are
conveniently missing
I think if I were to grant ANY reoccuring theme of aging and recycling in
WAY, it's not about rebirth but instead dealing with the weariness of life
after you've lived a very full one early (as Pete had done). And THAT, my
friend, is a distinctly WESTERN philosophy (if a philosophy at all).

> Uh.  Disagree, disagree.  I think "Chinese Eyes" looks back, not forward 
> as "Empty Glass" does.  I don't hear Mark's beloved progression so 
> strongly in "Chinese Eyes."

Perhaps, a little bit with the two spoken songs. Not much, though. I think
ATBCHCE was better than EG, but not as good as the followup WC. Although it
goes completely against my usual criteria, I love the version of North
Country Girl he does on here. It beats Dylan's version all to Hell.

> Is a blending of styles imitation, though?  I don't think so.

OK, but by the same token it's not innovation either.