[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Quad vs. Lifehouse and are they really painted clowns?



> >	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  I can't  look at any band as "serious" until
> *all* 
> >members have gone through puberty.
> They're working on it.  ;)
> keets
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  It's just taking soooooooo looooooooong.  ;-)

> From: Brian Cady <cadyb@home.com>
> Subject: Re: Lifehouse Live -
>    He seems to think that a live version in
> the manner of the 1996-97 Quadrophenia won't work.  I disagree, of
> course, as I think a lot of Who fans would, but that's Pete.
>         -Brian in Atlanta
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  Did he elaborate any as to why he felt that
way??  I can't imagine why it *wouldn't* work.  The question that comes to
my mind is did Quadrophenia really "work" for the *casual* Who fan?  I mean,
it took a movie to really bring the story into focus (again for the *casual*
and maybe not so casual Who fan).

> This brings up an interesting point that someone made on O&S, the
> difference 
> between performers and artists.  Anybody care to comment?
> keets
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  Shame on you for bringing an O&S discussion here
;-).
	Performers remain stagnant.  Artists are always creating,
re-inventing themselves and "moving on".
	Performers:  AC/DC, Stones, (I won't go the L. Zep rout ;-).
	Artists: David Bowie, Prince (pains me to write that), THE WHO. 
	Actually, THE WHO falls into both categories.  That's what makes
them so special.
	I know this is a narrow look at it.  But hey, it's a look!

> From: "Scott Schrade" 
> Subject: Re: Lifehouse Live - 
> Gotta say I love the songs, but LIFEHOUSE still seems a failure to me.
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  "Failure" seems a bit strong to me.  I see it as
uncompleted.

> The radio play blows
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  ;-)  Yyyyyyaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnn.

> , the storyline is *still* confusing 
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  Quad was the same way for a long time.  Like I
said above, I don't feel like there was an understanding of Quad until the
movie came out.

> (& frankly uninterest-ing)
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  Wow.  I find the concept and storyline to be
incredibly interesting.  It's visionary, and cuts to the very soul of music,
religion, social unrest, and everyone's desire to find nirvana.  It's about
what rock and roll *means*, how it affects us all, and what it's potentials
can be (if you believe).  Unfortunately the play doesn't do the concept
justice.

> , & CHRONICLES isn't the cohesive representation it was meant to
> be.
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  Was it meant to be a cohesive representation, or
just finally, a collection of all the tracks/demos/works that *make up*
Lifehouse.  If it was to be cohesive, it *did* fail.  But, I believe it's
just a collection.

> I'd love to hear the songs played back-to-back in concert but as far as
> story-structure goes, LIFEHOUSE falls short.
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  This is what is still missing.  The rock-opera
version like Tommy and Quad.

>   I know TOMMY has "gaps"
> & "confusion," too, but atleast there's some semblance of structure:
> intro-
> duction, rising action, dilemma, confrontation, & conclusion (I won't say
> "resolution" because that's unclear in TOMMY - a fact which makes it
> more endearing).
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  Hmmmmm, I see resolution.  Societies quickness
to follow icons, only to become bored and move on.  To me, the conclusion is
the very vivid reflection of our society and religion.  Or, at a different
level, the pop star industry.
	Now, as far as what happened to Tommy the man after his flock left
him?????......*that's* anyone's guess.  Did Tommy then become disillusioned
with society and move to the country after some sort of catastrophic
event??? ;-)  Only to seek that higher source himself???  *IS* Ray really
Tommy in the future all grown up?????  ;-)
>  
> Also, many of LIFEHOUSE's radio-friendly songs have been a part of pop
> culture for nearly 30 years, so to try to paste them to a storyline now
> for the
> casual WHO fan would surely fail.
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  But (again like I said above) this also failed
initially with Quad., and the concept was there from the get go.

>   Ask yourself: When you hear a LIFE-
> HOUSE song, do you think of the entire concept & story of LIFEHOUSE?
> I know I don't.  But when I hear a TOMMY song, it easily brings to mind 
> aspects of the entire work.  Am I right?  Of course I am.  Maybe.  You
> tell
> me.
> 
	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  OK, let me be the one to tell you ;-).  I used
to not, but now (for the last 5 or 6 years) when I hear a Lifehouse song, I
*do* place it into the context of Lifehouse.  For the *not*-so-casual Who
fan, the concept (or existence for that matter) is well known.  For the
casual Who fan, the concept (to a lesser extent) and existence of Lifehouse
is now being known.  I see the unavailing (even though it's not
complete......BRING ON THE ROCK OPERA!!) as the bridge to the past.  The
long lost tapes.  If Pete would put out a coherent Rock Opera, and then a
movie on top of that, the world would go "Aaahhhhhh, so this is what it was
all about.
	People love these songs because they touch them in some sort of
fashion.  Subconsciously they realize there are underlying themes in each
Lifehouse song that are alike and thus all touch them...in some way.  They
already identify with it all.
	If Pete would put it all together, it could bring a greater
understanding of ourselves and society. 
	(Someone throw me a scuba tank, 'cause I'm getting deep!!!!).

> - - SCHRADE in Akron
> "Fuck those northerners !  We'll have the party right here on the White 
>  House lawn !"
> 	- something Andrew Jackson might've said.
> 
	Stay in Tune (hoping this is an acceptable sig ;-),
	Kevin in VT

	"Boys, boys, can't you all play together without all that
bickering?"
	             - something my mom might've said.