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

Re: New Pete not re-Pete



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

> 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. 

Yeah, I know what you mean.  I sure don't want a horribly sounding new 
WHO album!  I just feel the songs have to be good first.  And then go from
there.  Right now, all the pressure's on Pete to come up with actual songs.
I suppose we can all argue about the sound later (knock on wood).

> A  good example might be the Unplugged Alice In Chains album. 

Yeah, that sounds bad & I haven't even heard it!

> 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. 

Give me one raunchy guitar track & an acoustic track beneath it.  That's a 
"classic" WHO/Pete studio sound.  And it always works.  Let THE WHO
keep their "old," "classic" sound.  If it ain't broke.....

> Another example would
> be the Guess Who, which performed better than the songs themselves...which
> were almost all crap.

There are far worse bands than the Guess Who to pick on.  They had quite a few 
decent songs.

> > 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 
> 
> 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.

It was corny because it just wasn't Pete's bag.  Reactionary because Pete came
across as manipulated, not inspired, by the medium.  And besides, that club/dub/
remix/swishy/wishy dance music started in Britain back in the early to mid 90's.
Hardly cutting edge in 1999.

> What you're saying is you want the classic Who sound, not a completely new
> sound.

With a batch of engaging songs.....sure. 

>But would that BE The Who? 

Of course.  Yes it would.

> 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!

Me, too.  Give me progression in Pete's song writing.  Give me progression in 
Pete's lyrics.  Give me progression through Roger's mid-50's voice.  Give me
progression in a 21st century OX.  Give me progression through the "amazing"
Zak Starkey.  That's where we'll hear the progression.  You'll get plenty of prog-
ression!  I just feel there is no need to dramatically fuck with THE WHO's nat-
ural, classic, original, or whatever you want to call it, sound.

> 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. 

Well, Mark, we're finally here.  We've reached the point where we're arguing
about a WHO album that doesn't exist!  It's great to be a WHO freak, isn't
it?!

> 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!

Yes!  That's the progression I was talking about!

> I'd rather have a Who album that takes me a few weeks to fully appreciate
> than yet another Who's Next.

I want one that hits me hard, right off the bat!  And it doesn't have to be a
WHO'S NEXT clone.  I'd rather have a WHO BY NUMBERS clone, to
be honest.

BTW, it took me a "few weeks" to eventually appreciate 1/3 of PYSCHODER-
ELICT.  I don't want to go through *that* again.

> I mean, if you want recycled Rock sound there's always the Stones.

Pass.


SCHRADE in Akron