RE: Keith and The Wave keeps rolling

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>]

>Keets
>Subject: RE: Keith. Period.
>
>Think there is any way he could be as fast now, assuming he had 
>made it through?  

I'm a firm believer that Keith could have regained *all* of what he was.
It's amazing what drying out and a good fitness plan can do for a human.
BUT, naturally at 50+ years there is going to be a reduction in speed and
stamina.  "Keith-Moon-Drummin" isn't for the weak.

>And how would he have made the transition to what Pete 
>wrote later on?

You're assuming that the transition still would have occurred.  Didn't Pete
write/state that Keith's death allowed him to take the music in other
directions?
At any rate, it would have been interesting and better than Kenney!
(Yes Kenney fans, I'm wearing my target T-shirt!)

>He's almost too accomplished, don't you think?  

Is there such a thing? ;)

>Did I mention that I can hear speed-metal in TED's early eighties stuff?  
>That's where you're hearing New Wave too, right?
>keets

Speed Metal?? You'll have to show me where.

>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>
>Subject: New Aging gracefully; "Take On Me;" Grunge; Lifehouse boxed set
 
>Punk and humor are now linked completely. 

One of the reasons I lost interest. Punk lost it's purpose.

>But it >grunge< created nothing new. Nothing that didn't exist before it,
>including
>the rebellion. And that's what I meant. Nothing new in Rock = Rock is dead.
>      Cheers                 ML

If the rebellion was about a different topic/issue, and by a different
population, then it's new.  It was a pretty big movement.  Hell, it got
snotty girls into flannel!
And the music *was* a bit tweaked.  Grunge brought the punk edge into rock.
I hear what you're saying, but I like to think of rock as not growing
(much), instead of being dead.
Haven't we been here?? ;)
  
I liked your thought that New wave was geared toward the keyboards.
Interesting that Pete also is into keyboards.  One of the unique aspects of
The Who.

>From: Jeff House <jjthandmeh@juno.com>
>Subject: MSG refunds New Wave/Alternative

>Kevin, Mark L, Keets et al
>I do not disagree with any of your postings about Pete incorporating
>vairous
>styles in his writing during the "new wave" phase of pop history.

Not a one?

>I passed through puberty during the NW time

TOO MUCH INFORMATION (got hands over ears)! ;-)

>I defy you

No, not that! 

>to include or exclude these artists in the wave

Look, please remember that I started this whole thing with the statement
that the lines are very fuzzy.  I think what we have been doing is trying to
trace history.  History doesn't just start and stop, it flows.  Same with
music.  There isn't some guy with a starters-gun telling us when one genre
starts and the next starts.  Things turn grey before becoming black or
white.
 
>"New Wave" does not deserve to be a sub-genre of rock

I don't see The Cure, or B52's, or Devo, or English Beat, or any of those as
the pop-music of that time.  I'd put Michael Jackson and  into *that*
category.
If not pop, then what?    A sub-genre of rock maybe?  Hey, rock is just a
kind of music style.  It can be changed or added to.

>, but I do feel that
>Pete's writing of the New Wave period was influenced by music that was
>current.

That's all were saying.

>Ahhh, good coffee
>Jeff

>From: Jester <jester13_us@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: MSG refunds New Wave/Alternative
>
>I agree with you totally Jeff. Short statement but
>it's true.
>       -jess in jersey 

Oh for Christ's sake, you too????
What, is it the coffee connection????? ;-)
 
Stay in tune,
Kevin in CA