A long and tedious discussion about New Wave with a joke at the end to lighten the mood

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

>Ok, I did a marathon listen last night of the last 3 Who albums (WAY, FD,
>IH).  Now, before I write my thoughts on this, I want to emphasize that
this
>is all subjective. This isn't meant to start a grand debate.  If it does,
>fine.  But, I won't be broken hearted if the reply is simply "Hmmm,
>interesting take" (I can already hear ML typing this ;-)

Kevin:

Now would I do that to you? Besides (and I can hear the groans out there
already), there's nothing I like better than a discussion about Rock music.
Oh, OK, a couple of things but there might be some underage and innocent
people on the list so I'll just pass over those for now...

>. I mean, it gets
>into very fuzzy lines of what is RnR, and what is NewWave.  Are they
>different?

The way I see it is: There was RnR, which had its roots in Blues/RnB/Folk
with a bit of Jazz for good measure (that's a musical joke, folks). Chuck
Berry, Elvis, Little Richard...you can hear it all there. This was pretty
much the situation in late 1964, with the newer bands (with the four likely
lads from Liverpool at the helm) pretty much recycling this style of music.
AND THEN CAME THE WHO, STOMPING ON THE TUNDRA LIKE MASTADONS.
(I've always wanted to say that)
The Who songs (or more specifically Pete Townshend's songs mutated through
The Who) had their roots in RnB and some Blues, but collectively achieved a
new form which can only be called Rock...and RnR, Rockabilly, etc. etc.
became subgenres of this more general style of music...one which had less
definite structure and more freedom than any before it, even Jazz at that
point.
New Wave is a subgenre of Rock, you see. As far as I can tell, it owes more
to David Bowie (and before him Mark Bolin/T. Rex) than to The Who or anyone
else. But it's still Rock, just a form of Rock.

> What really *is* RnR?

Defined above. What is Rock? Quadrophenia both defines it and transcends it.
Quad had so many different styles of music it was pretty much predicting the
next ten years of music...Punk, New Wave, New Romantic. Here, Kevin, another
for your nightmares: "That's the look/That's the look/The look of love..."

>After listening to the "final 3", my first thought was..."Jeeeez, these
guys
>kick some f'n ass.  And these aren't even the most liked Who albums out

If you take them in context to the other albums of the era, as one should,
they are pretty durn good. But that's not a good thing, it just meant that
Rock was running out of steam. When Punk came, the recycling which is still
going on today began. While there have been many bands who have made music
since 1977, I haven't heard any who have really done anything that hadn't
been done before. Rock is dead, I say (and have said before).

>John's songs fit more closely the "classic" definition of RnR.  Pete's, in
>contrast, then doesn't.

That's because, and you know I love ya John, Entwistle is not as original a
music-writer as Pete.

>I can't say I feel anything in this album really that could be considered
>New Wave, but it definitely is leaving the RnR genre, or at least starting
>to stretch it's boarders.

The Who never were much of a RnR band. Long Live Rock and the MG Blues are
about it, and MG Blues is really just Memphis Tennessee with MG lyrics.

>Ironically enough, IH begins to turn back to the more "classic" RnR.

Classic Rock.

>82 footage.  Pete is all about New Wave.  His dancing is classic New Wave!

Pete was trying not to get old before he died. I mean, what WAS that Flock
Of Seagulls haircut all about anyway? Can anyone say: midlife crisis?

>following a new genre, or Pete creating a new genre???

As much as I give credit to The Who for, I can't give them New
Wave...although without The Who breaking the RnR boundary and influencing
Bowie (no doubt about that), it wouldn't have existed...so I think you're
looking too close to the music for their influence.

>Kevin and Mark:  Dead Milkmen? what the hell is that?

Jeff:

I call them Punk. Others might disagree, as they were actually a bit after
Punk...what was then called Hardcore, which included bands like Husker Du
and X.
Anyway, I put them in the Punk section of my store. If you like Punk, you
might want to try them.

>Maryland were "Root Boy Slim" and "Crack The Sky".

I've heard of RBS but never heard any of their music, and I have two Crack
The Sky LPs and have had a fairly recent CD of theirs in my store.
Progressive Rock, that. I thought they were British, but I don't know for
sure. They did I Am The Walrus on one album, but then so did Spooky Tooth.

>Nice spread for the movie in NEWSWEEK, but nary a mention of The Who.

Keets:

We always get the short end of the stick. Good thing we're not in an NYC
jail, huh?

>remember,it's almost a differnt band now. After all,'Eminence Front'
>was used for an episode of the flashy,glitzy 'Miami Vice'.

Derick:

Oh, damn dude! I could have gone the rest of my life happier without knowing
that. Did they make The Dukes Of Hazzard and BJ And The Bear too?
Oh, the humanity. Why do I feel like watching a Tom Cruise movie all of a
sudden?

>thought Paul Winter, Ralph Towner and Kitaro all fit into the NewWave
>category.

Really? New Age, maybe.

>distinctions and mix them all together?  Is this the same as NewAge?

New Age is noodling. You know how a lot of Classic Rock bands go into Blues
when they can no longer come up with anything new (Rick Derringer, for
instance)? Well, New Age is where Vangelis and Tangerine Dream and all those
Progressive Rock bands went when they ran out of ideas. I liked Michael
Hedges, but merely because I crave new sounds and he sort of had one. When
it comes down to it, Chris Whitley (a mix between Creedence and Country with
yodeling vocals) is much more interesting, and he's a better songwriter too.

>I think the reason their CD's haven't been selling, Mark, is that they
>haven't made a CD  since Bringing Down the Horse in 1996.

Jill:

That hasn't stopped Pink Floyd or about 100 other bands I could mention. I
think they were overexposed. Doesn't mean they aren't good, but "too much of
anything" as they say.

>Anyway, sorry for babling on, i've been looking for a who mailing list
>for ages so i'm quite chuffed i found this while surfing.

Mick:

In the words of Pete Townshend, "Welcome." Uh, you don't play guitar do you?
Oh well, I guess you're too young to be THAT Mick Taylor.

>Is this a joke or what ! The Dead F----- Milkmen ! Ha! ha! Are you =
>serious ?

Derick:

Oh, there's FAR worse out there. There's plenty of "Dead" bands, starting
with Dead Kennedys. Then there's the Punk bands with gay names like Fudge
Tunnel and Ass Ponys and Habitual Sex Offender (OK, so that one's not gay)
and the best new Punk band I've heard, and this is no joke: The Queers.
Quite good, although I can see why you might be reluctant to pick this one
up. I suggest the CD called Beat Off.

Really. I'm serious.

>I'd say Jakob, like his dad, is in it for the long term.  No rush, wait

Keets:

Maybe, but Bobby was cranking them out there in the beginning. No less than
one a year, and all essential from 1962-1969.


"RATS."
    George W Bush, Presidential candidate 2000, as he slips some more in the
polls


        Cheers                 ML