[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