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

Re: New Pete not re-Pete




> MAGIC BUS!"? Or does your model include an audience of thoughtful Who
> fans like you and me and others on this list who understand the
> Lifehouse idea and could actually provide constructive feedback?

Jim:

I think part of the picture you're not taking into account is that "then" we
were all a lot younger, and more prone to yell "Magic Bus" (actually I never
did, but if I had it would have been "I'm Free!"). So assuming that most (at
least) of us have grown and matured, we now get more out of the music than
the gut-level rush and perhaps would rather hear more thoughtful music.
Concerning the younger fans, I think they're attracted to The Who for their
thoughtfulness rather than their raw power, because after all there's plenty
of new and much more powerful bands out there.

> Seriously, There are many things that are and could be different.  Lack of
> drug abuse within the band is the biggest change since the first go round.

Jeff:

That's an extremely good point, and a related one might be that then they
almost had nothing to lose but now they're playing for important reasons. To
elevate their legacy, to motivate the reluctant potential fan.

> I don't think the sound is the issue here. The *songs* have to be decent.

Scott:

I think it IS an issue, because even the best songs (I agree with you there,
of course) can be ruined by poor performance or bad production. A good
example might be the Unplugged Alice In Chains album. Many songs can sound
good with a lot of raunchy guitar but when they sound even better acoustic,
then the quality is in the song, not the performance. Another example would
be the Guess Who, which performed better than the songs themselves...which
were almost all crap.

> What's good?  What are decent songs?  I can't say for sure, but I'd like
to here
> a new WHO album that's not too slick.  That Gateway bullshit that most of
you
> out there enjoyed makes me sick & emabarrassed.  Every friend I played
that
> for thought it was corny & reactionary (please, no jokes about my limited
number
> of "friends").

I don't get the "corny and reactionary" part, because in 1999 it was pretty
cutting edge. Sure, now there are bands who sound similar (Orgy for one) but
it's been two years.

> I thought the Gateway thing was a step sideways, not forwards.  I don't
mind
> some electonic weirdness.  In fact, I enjoy it!  Use keyboards, samples,
effects,
> drum machines......I don't care.  Just give us good songs.  Good lyrics.

Well, we ARE talking about Who Are You here.

> And make it raw, too.  Loud guitar.  Loud drums.  Mainly upbeat songs.
Some
> cussin'.  Give Daltery a main vocal track.

What you're saying is you want the classic Who sound, not a completely new
sound. But would that BE The Who? One of the things I like most about the
band was the progression...so I expect the music to have progressed 20 years
from It's Hard!

> Honestly, if a new WHO album had 6 - 10 kick-ass songs on it & the
production
> sounded exactly the same as WHO'S NEXT, I wouldn't be disapponted.  That's
not
> to say I believe the next WHO album *should* have the WN sound; I'm
stressing
> that the actual songs *have* to be catchy, intelligent, loud, & raw for
this hypotheti-
> cal new WHO album to be anything more than a joke.

Well, I don't know that I agree with you there. I don't think it would be a
joke if it was great songs performed in a new manner. Remember, at this
point they are limited by Daltrey's voice. Instead of it being a liability,
turn it into a positive by making music that compliments his new voice
rather than highlights how much he's lost in 20 years. Adapt, change, make
the most out of what they have!
I'd rather have a Who album that takes me a few weeks to fully appreciate
than yet another Who's Next. I mean, if you want recycled Rock sound there's
always the Stones.

> the tour, though, maybe there'll be a meeting of minds.  I think in
several
> cases we heard his current musical technique integrated with The Who.

Keets:

And that is exactly what we all should want for a new album. Pete's vision,
not re-Pete.


"There are some monuments where the land is so widespread,
   they just encompass as much as possible. And the integral
    part of the-the precious part, so to speak-I guess all land
     is precious, but the part that the people uniformly would
      not want to spoil, will not be despoiled. But there are
       parts of the monument lands where we can explore without
         affecting the overall environment."
               George "I know what I mean!" Bush

               Cheers                 ML