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

Re: Meltdown (go ahead, give it to me); No new Who




> Oh.  You didn't like "Candle in the Wind?"

Keets:

That's on Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, which came out in 1973.

> Clapton melted about 21 years ago, and Paul Simon about 10 years ago.

Paul Simon is problematical. He lost it after two solo albums but came back
strong (as Hell) with Graceland, but has pretty much lost it since.

> for in concert and on SOME GIRLS, the Stones have been in half-meltdown
since
> about 1973.

I agree except I would include SG; nothing at ALL new on that album. It's
Sticky Fingers mark III.

> Clapton has done some wonderful work in the last 5 years.  The blues

Jeff:

Clapton has proven he's a fine performer; some of his best work is on Roger
Waters' Pros And Cons Of Hitchiking. But as a writer, he hasn't impressed me
since Derek & Dominos. IOW, I'm no fan of heroin but for Clapton it was a
good thing.

> Worst meltdown?  My vote goes to The Who.

I have to disagree. When Moon departed it changed things, and considering
that the band did rather well. Doesn't count as a meltdown.

> Brian Wilson and Elvis would have to be near or at the top of my list.

Oh, DEFINTELY!

> I didn't see the whole '89 tour, of course, but I think THE WHO LIVE tape
is
> one of the best available records of The Who.  It's a polished,

Keets:

Oh, what ARE you saying? The Who are best unpolished...LAL! Need I say more?
Polished album by The Who: Face Dances.

> Am I out of line on this?  Everybody seemed pleased with the tour at the
> time.  Why is it so bad looking back on it?

My first comment (on hearing the Radio City show before actually seeing the
band in Raleigh, NC a few months later): "I can't believe how much it sounds
like The Who!" I'd count it higher just because it was better than anything
else going on in 1989...see, that's got to count too! Steel Wheels? I think
not...

> I thought The Who sounded very similar on the QUAD tour, though

But Quad needed the fuller sound, and when they did the encores at the end
there was no horn section etc. Actually, the Tommy material sounded pretty
good in 1989 (except for the jam at the end of Pinball Wizard) but was
intrusive for the non-Tommy material (especially Baba).

> you guys, I ask: how would each one of you describe Pete, Roger, Entwistle
> and Moon, in simple words ?

Jules:

No way to do that. Best if you do a little Internet research on the Who
sites, listen to Quadrophenia a lot and watch for long, extended debates
here (feel free to ask specific questions). There just isn't anything simple
about those four.

> Pete is a performing artist, and according to his art school theory, the
> performance is better if it's spontaneous.  Hence the jamming.

Keets:

I have no problem with it, just don't think it's "new material."

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

Nothing, but I'd hesistate to call it any more than stream of conciousness
singing.

> But not Kiddie Rock?

Hey, you don't want me to list everything do you? ALL Rock is Rock, OK? But
if you're talking about Backstreet Boys and so on, that's not Rock at all,
but diluted R&B. Why does NSYCH make more money than Boyz II Men, when
they're clearly a poor copy? Why did The Stones make more money than Chuck
Berry? It's all the same thing.

> How about Christian rock?  What's your definition based on again?  Not the
> beat, as I recall.  Was it the content?

It stopped being about the beat in the 60's. My definition: Rock music is
the music that evolved from Blues and Folk, combined with R&B and Boogie
Woogie in the 50's (then called Rock N Roll) which further mutated until
1965, when The Who released My Generation and broke the Chuck Berry / Blues
song structure hold on music. Then it became whatever, pretty
much...although most of it has at least drums and guitars (but not all).
Forms of Rock have deveoloped since, including Punk, Grunge, Lilith,
Industrial...but they all came from Rock.

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

Uh...I don't, and I'm old enough to remember. It was hailed as a new
masterpiece. Rightly so, but it was the LAST series of good reviews The Who
were to get for an album.

> Needs risk to make it right?

No necessarily, but it does need advancement and evolution. Progression.

> Isn't that an awful thing to have say about rock?

Not really, and besides it's true.

> Its conservatism these
> days is what makes it suitable for children and churches.

Yeah, but it's not music for children and churches. They have their music,
why can't we have ours too? I personally don't want to live in a world
suitable for only churches and children (even if Bush is about as
intelligent as Barney).
Churches fought against Rock music until some bright fellow realized they
were losing kids...then we got Stryper and White Cross and many more. As for
children, Rock music was meant to be a forbidden treat, and what happened
there is we became a generation whose parents were listening to Rock music.
MY parents listened to Brubeck (who IS great, after all) and Torch Jazz,
some Broadway musicals...and hated Rock music, especially that "loud
obnoxious" band The Who I used to stick in my 8-Track so frequently.

> Did you hear anything new from The Who last summer?

No. I heard a great live Rock band performing past what anyone could
possibly expect at this point, but I didn't hear any new music evolving.

> 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.

There is that, but the labels want to push the new bands too. Whereas the
radio programmers hate to take a chance on something that will make
listeners change stations.

> thirteen-year-olds.  Is that the crowd musicians have to win to have good
> sales?

Most of my customers are 20-50. Then again, the stuff you're talking about
sells immediately.

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

I've heard all of this before. I don't hear ANY new stuff going on,
unfortunately. I think Rock is dead, and has been since the mid-70's when
Pete wrote that it was. I agree with him yet again.

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

Right. They were writing "Elton John" songs.

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

I can't say. But we know he has taken lots of stuff to heart over the years.
I guess that's what makes him who he is, and we all like that right?

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

I think it's all innocent, and no harm was ever intended. Like I said, some
fans are passionate and might push their ideas more aggressively than
someone who doesn't want to get shot by a fan might feel comfortable with.

> That's supposed to be Matt Kent, right?

Is it? I haven't seen him on this list. I haven't heard of any gathering
opinions. I think more he's Pete's representative to us, not the other way
around.
No, it should be one of us...and if I had any choice (even though I know
he'd turn it down), I'd nominate Brian Cady. He's intelligent, well-spoken,
understands every time, and (I believe) could communicate with Pete without
threatening his ego.



"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