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

Re: Pete's Pissy Mood



> > Good, solid rock albums are nostalgia now.  If it doesn't break any new 
>ground--if it doesn't smash anything, then what good is it?
>
>One of the challenges of Art, however, is working within an established 
>*framework.*  That means creating something fresh & engaging *without* 
>going too far "out of bounds."

Going out of bounds is like what Billy Joel has done, where he says he's 
completely abandoned the popular music genre for classical.  (Now Elton John 
wants to quit, too.  The music business must really suck, these days.)  
Classical is a style, BTW.  It's fairly easy to shift a particular 
composition through interpretation.  If someone just writes good music, then 
it can be developed in any way.

Getting back to The Who, they have their own style.  They could easily take 
a classical type piece and "Whoify" it the same way they can take blues 
songs and "Whoify" them.  The 1996-97 Quad sounded heavily jazz-influenced 
to me (something made possible by the bigger band), and I loved it.  I'm not 
going to restrict Pete or The Who in what they want to do.  I'm sure they 
know that most fans would prefer an album with a rock sound, but if it's a 
drag to write and to perform, then I can't see them working at it very hard. 
  I'd rather they surprise me with something fresh and original.

It does need to express The Who philosophy and be well-developed--errors 
that I think made FD and IH less acceptable to the fans.


>I know, I know....there's always room for artistic "expansion," but I don't 
>believe that completey abandoning all previous structure & style 
>necessarily guarantees decent product.  Isn't that what Pete says caused 
>the quick downfall of the original Punk music scene?

Certainly it did, because the philosophy required that they quit before they 
developed in any way as musicians.


>And I'll be one pissed off motherfucker if that new studio album contains a 
>bunch a pseudo-rap experiments a' la that Gateway "Who Are You" bull-shit.  
>That wasn't a step forward; it was a stumble sideways.

I loved the techno sound.  But techno and rap aren't new genres these days.  
Rap has been popular long enough that it's in a decline the same way rock 
has been for a long while, so incorporating rap into a piece isn't 
especially ground-breaking.  Latin was interesting, but the trend is a 
couple of years old now, so that sound is a little stale as well.

What's new on the horizon?  Groove?  Maybe unsuitable for The Who.  I hear 
the chill ablum is the latest thing.  Also unsuitable.  Hmmm.  I guess we'll 
just have to let them do it.


>- SCHRADE in Akron
>   (cough)

Echinasea.

:)
keets