Re: Pete on Broadway (or not); Pete's paranoia; the list

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

> It's postmodern art.

Keets:

Everything's Art. If it was postmodern Art, then it left a lot to be
desired. IMHO.

> Definitely strange.  He seems reasonably pleased with it, though.  I hear
> he's carrying it around with him on the tour.

He's always been an odd bird. A friend who met him had this to say: he's the
dirtiest man he'd ever met. Dirty fingernails, in need of a bath...maybe it
was a bad day?

> Does Paul Simon fit the definition, too?

Yeah. Rock is the overall definition; then there are subcatagories like Folk
Rock, Rockabilly, Punk, Lilith, Heavy Metal and so on.

> But then everybody gripes when they do something even a little bit
different

Too bad for "everybody." We're lucky to get anything, and this is the reason
Pete is reluctant...conservative fans who are unable to deal with something
new. Yet Tommy fans by this measure should have had a hard time with Who's
Next. We KNOW people had a problem with Quad when it came out. Keep this up
and we get no new Who, but The Who as an oldies band until they embarrass
themselves by not being able to come up to a reasonable standard. It's like
the woman who is beautiful when she's younger, she doesn't want to hear:
"She looks good for her age." I don't want to hear that about The Who.
But Pete should say "To Hell with it" and release whatever sort of new music
he wants to, with or without The Who. If the old time or hard line fans
don't like it, too damn bad. The way things have been going since 1978,
we're getting the product of much agony over what the music will be
perceived as by the fans. Then, to satisfy the fans he remakes the old stuff
instead of creating something new, diluting the old stuff in the process.
When did being old fashioned and conservative become perceived as a "good
thing?" It's not in any way. The reason Rock music isn't doing much of
anything is because it's too conservative (fans and bands), afraid to
change. Radio stations are the real bad guys here...sales figures dictate
what they play, ignoring the fact that if something sold those people now
own it and probably don't want to hear it on the radio too. So little new
music gets played even on new Rock stations, and young people are stuck in
the same vein instead of having their own. Forget about MTV! They're even
more conservative.
No, Art is meant to progress and Rock music hasn't progressed a hair since
the late 70's. Time to move on if that's the best it can do. Conservatism is
dead (or smells like it is, anyway) and it's time to go forward into the
future.

> lack of quality.  Are mediocre sales an indicator of better quality?

No, but come on...it's easy to see Elton John's music went into stagnation
after Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. And that is an indicator of quality.

> Yep, it's all related.  And, I don't think we can characterize what was
said
> directly to Pete, and also on the BBS as just "comments".  Pete's a big
boy,
> he can read "comments" with out getting all in a twist.

Kevin:

Not really. He's shown many times he's sensitive to negative comment. Maybe
he shouldn't be, but he is.

> But it went *WAY* beyond just commenting about it.  If I'm not mistaken
Pete
> wrote that there were personal insults, and a threat involved.

One thing that's not considered here: there were off-Internet incidents as
well. Taken all together, however innocent the intent it could be added up
to something dangerous...especially if you're in a position to fear
obsession (as most famous people are, considering what happened to John
Lennon for instance). Sometimes passionate beliefs come across as
aggression, and if one thinks they have a legitimate point and it's being
ignored, they might attempt to drive it home more aggressively than the
artist (already wary) might find comfortable.
Who's to blame? The only safe way to do it would be to have a representative
for the fans, someone who IS able to communicate without going too far.

> The Who have had their ups and downs never a total "melt-down".  I'm
curious
> what other's think of my list, or if they want to add to it, or make a new
> list.

Jon:

I agree with your list, except perhaps I wouldn't give McCartney as much
credit. IMHO, the only post-Ram album worth bothering with is Unplugged. But
there are others: Dave Mason went from Traffic to Sinatra (We Just
Disagree), Journey upon hiring Steve Perry, Clapton after Derek & Dominos,
Bowie after Diamond Dogs, Nilsson after Schmilsson, Springstein after Born
In USA, Moody Blues after Long Distance Voyager, Costello after Trust...the
list goes on and on...


"Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself."
            George "Double-naught" Bush
       On how far we'd be willing to go to defend Taiwan


               Cheers                 ML