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

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



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

Pete is a performing artist, and according to his art school theory, the 
performance is better if it's spontaneous.  Hence the jamming.  I think he 
pretty much reaches his ideal when he puts together a complete song on 
stage.  Ever watch the '82 Who Rocks tape?  It's amazing to watch him do it. 
  I'm with Pete.  I think it's terrific.

Are you talking about the Texas TKAA that left a lot to be desired?  What 
was wrong with it?


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

But not Kiddie Rock?  I do notice a lot of musicians target the younger 
crowd these days.  If you watch the credits in the Saturday morning 
cartoons, you'll see familiar names.  Plus, rap and hip-hop (see MTV 
discussion) seem very much aimed at the sub-teen crowd.
How about Christian rock?  What's your definition based on again?  Not the 
beat, as I recall.  Was it the content?


>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.

They did, didn't they?  I seem to recall some annoyed reviews.


>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.

Needs risk to make it right?


>The reason Rock music isn't doing much of anything is because it's too 
>conservative (fans and bands), afraid to change.

Isn't that an awful thing to have say about rock?  Its conservatism these 
days is what makes it suitable for children and churches.  But I guess the 
same thing happens to any new musical genre.  It always happens first on the 
fringes, in some unexpected place.  There's a burst of cutting-edge 
creativity when it first takes off, and then thirty years down the line it's 
sanitized, and it falls into the same old rut.

Did you hear anything new from The Who last summer?


>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.

Radio stations seem to have deals with the record companies.  When I checked 
with some of local stations, they said they played compilation disks sent by 
the record labels.  If you're not on one of those, then you're at a 
disadvantage right away.  They're immediately suspicious of anything without 
that seal of approval.  I mean, after all, it might be something new and 
unsanitized.


>Forget about MTV! They're even more conservative.

We've got them pegged.  It's kiddie music, very narrow programming aimed at 
thirteen-year-olds.  Is that the crowd musicians have to win to have good 
sales?


>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.

Where do you think it should go from here?  Is Radiohead pointing the 
direction?  Other bands?


> > 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.

Ha.  There it is.  Stagnation.  No creativity left, right?  It's just 
putting words to a beat.


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

Depends on how personal it is?  Maybe it's something that feel like an 
attack that sets him off.


>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...

And if the intent isn't so innocent, then it's even worse.  The fans really 
want something from Pete.


>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.

That's supposed to be Matt Kent, right?  But apparently the fact that he 
actually went to work for Pete sparked a wave of jealousy.

I expect TED appreciate the forums.  At least it gives them an idea of who's 
out there and what they're up to.  Damn crazy fans.  ;)


keets
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com