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

Re: Fan hitting the shit; Meltdown fever



> drying out, roger did not drink, john had argued with roger bout the
loudness
> of his bass and they all played too stiff.

Scott:

That means there was never a period with Kenney where they were at their top
potential. Because they sure weren't before `82 and there is no after.

> No argument that the *initial* intent was innocent.  I'm not so sure that
> building frustrations didn't morph that.

Kevin:

You can be sure; they did.

> Contribution to frustration is clearly understandable.  I can't understand
> the aggression.

I find that a strange statement, and I'll explain why below.

> Aggression, in my book, is never justified.  Particularly in this case.

But The Who are one of THE most aggressive band in the Rock universe...Punk
bands were the first I can think of to go beyond that, and most of them were
admitted Who fans. So why is it surprising that a Who fan might be
aggressive. I certainly am, as you know. I would be more surprised at a Who
fan NOT being aggressive, myself. Doesn't mean they go out and beat people
up, but that's not what happened on Pete's BB either.

> Why?  I don't feel that way.  I would *hope* I'd be taken seriously by the
> band, but if not, I need to be grounded enough to accept that.

I do feel I should be taken seriously, in those odd moments when I am
serious that is. The problem is when assuming some understand you're not
serious and take things not meant to be AS serious...you know, like "I
didn't inhale"...CLEARLY a joke but not taken so.
But I wasn't speaking of myself, but instead a composite of the fan
mentality in general.

> Mark, you have always been an advocate for musician rights when it comes
to
> their music.

Yeah, but I'm the odd man out. Not a Who fan by the usual measure. I'm a
Rock music fan first and a Who fan because they're the best...not the other
way around, as most might assume. So, anyway I do agree with you...but I
wasn't on the BB arguing about Astley's work.

> Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you have the right to make them hear it,
> or take it.

Not everyone feels this way, for good or bad. Sometimes the fans ARE right
and the bands wrong.

> musical paths, then where does that leave Led Zep, a band that to me
clearly
> saw their end and decided to use the convenient death of John B. as an
> excuse to end a career that really had already melted down severely.

I'd say Zep melted down not because of changing styles...their two best
albums (IMHO) are the most varied, Three and Houses Of The Holy. No, they
melted down because Plant and Page lost their edge. It's clear to see that
Jones picked up the fumbled ball on Physical Grafitti and kept them going
when the others were out of ideas.

> rather than in the RCA albums that seem quite underrated now. SOAP OPERA
was
> reviled when it came out but sounds great now.

Brian:

I was a Kinks fan before I was a Who fan...in fact, led to The Who as a
result. I was a strong supporter until Showbiz kicked it out from under
me...but it was Soap Opera which brought me back. I think it's a brilliant
piece, and did so when it came out.

> number of people said they wrote The Kinks off during the Arista years.
One
> person said they became a "parody of themselves."

Perhaps in concert, but musically they didn't. They became polished and
professional...which a lot of bands did in the late 70's...but their new
music was different enough to not be a parody of their earlier work. Where
is that line drawn, anyway? Is Cooks County a parody of the Who sound?

> "Shattered" or "When The Whip Comes Down."  And I'm far from being a
Stones
> defender. SOME GIRLS sounds to me like The Stones cop disco and punk
whereas
> STICKY FINGERS sound more like The Stones cop Santana and Gram Parsons.

SF is the mold by which every other Stones album after Goats Head is drawn.
It's like this many slow songs, this many RnR songs...Whip, Lies &
Respectable are all almost the same song. They're standard RnR, like Brown
Sugar. Not exactly alike (that came later in their career), but pretty much
the same thing redone. *I* don't hear any Punk in it, for that matter.

> On the Zep question, I would say they just ended a fairly  straight-line
> career.  Hardly a meltdown. IMNSHO (of course)

Jeff:

Presence? That was the album that made me decide never to buy another Zep
album unheard again.

> It was maybe a little much on the older stuff, but a nice addition to the
> grander songs like "Love Reign O'er Me."

Keets:

Uh...that doesn't count; I've already said the big band worked for Quad. I
resented horns over the three most powerful powerchords in Rock history
(Baba).

> What do you consider "new material?"  Studio recordings only?  What about
> Pete demos?

New material is complete written songs...not jamming and/or ad libbing.

> This is what I call progressive rock, if you recall.  There IS a strict
> definition of rock music based on a two-four beat, but any accomplished
> musician will get bored with it pretty quick, and start looking around for

That's where I go off the strict definition. I think that might have applied
until MG, but that was the song which broke the mold. I'm still waiting for
someone to show me another candidate, and haven't been able to find one
myself.

> more interesting things to do.  It's not strictly rock music at that
point.

Rock is the overall definition which encompasses all genres, including
Progressive Rock. So of course it's Rock.

> classical style recordings popular, and orchestrating heavy metal.  Did
you
> like S&M?

No. It was the same old redoing old material thing I don't like.

> Sub-genres?  Again, the boundaries can be pretty blurry.

Life is tough. We just have to get through it, find a way to talk about this
stuff despite very little being easy to pin down.

> This is about content.  The content you're looking for has become
associated
> with a particular beat or style of music.

And the children and church music style has become too standardized for me.
I want a little stretching which they don't provide.

> Jazz was a forbidden treat in its time.

Right. Its time has passed and so has Rock's time.

> to rap and hiphop, of course.

But Rap and Hip-Hop are not progressive at all. They're actually pretty
regressive, using sampled music someone else has created and standard beats.

> going to do when the classic rock groups start putting out new albums?
Wait
> fifteen years to play them?  Duh.

However bad it is there, it's worse in Myrtle Beach...believe me.

> popular category, rather than strictly rock.  Where does rock have left to
> go?

Away.

> Matt was the moderator of the PT BBS, and apparently intended to fulfill
> this role.  It just didn't work out too well

I have nothing against Matt, he seems like a nice guy. But he was never our
representative.

> Pete was on heroin then, wasn't he?  He definitely looks like death warmed
> over.

I'll admit I haven't been around enough heroin addicts to say, but he acts
pretty drunk it seems to me.

> No it was either booze or coke in that period.

I DO know it couldn't have been coke, or he would have been intense rather
than sloppy.


"It's very important for folks to understand that when
    there's more trade, there's more commerce."
          George "It wasn't obvious to ME" Bush



               Cheers                 ML