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

Re: Pete's Pissy Mood



> > I'd rather they surprise me with something fresh and original.
>
>But why must they deviate from their proven formula in order for you
>to be pleased.  Are you saying that just another "rock" album would
>be a disappointment?  Does it really have to "break new ground" in
>order to be deemed a successs?

Ouch!  Trying to repeat a formula is the worst thing in the world to do.  
You see it all the time--"Hey! We've got a hit! Now let's keep doing that 
same thing over and over to make sure they're all hits!"  But the public is 
always off after the next new sound, and the fomula turns out to be 
forgettable.  The hard thing is to make something original and classic that 
sticks up above the sea of dross playing on the airwaves.


>Aren't you setting your standards too high?  As I've stated before, I'd be 
>very happy with a solid rock album with a handful of decent, stimulating 
>songs.  I really don't want to be surprised by some large jump in technique 
>or approach.

Aren't you setting your standards too low?  Everybody's trying to trap Pete 
into a rock album, when that's what he left behind a long time ago.  That's 
one big reason he wanted to be free of The Who, of course--because they were 
so associated with the rock genre and he felt they couldn't do anything else 
successfully.  Let's just have some good music and not try to classify it.


>The magic of The Who is the coming together & playing of TED.
>*That's* what's been getting us off all these years.  The Who are great at 
>making Who music - not blindly grappling with musical genres.

I don't think they do it blindly.  They sound contemporary to me.  They've 
picked up elements of the current music scene and added the technique.  Just 
about every show they've done has some kind of experiment in it.


>Now, I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I know The Who can
>be innovative & groundbreaking.  But it sounds to me like you're longing 
>for some kind of leap into new musical areas.  Wouldn't that come across as 
>desperate & fake?

Well, not really longing for it.  Like I said, I don't want to limit what 
they do.  Every album they've ever done is different, and I don't think we 
should expect Pete to go backward and try to re-create the WHO'S NEXT sound 
or the QUAD sound, or whatever.  It comes out like it comes out.

I do think it has to be something all of them add to, though.  That seems to 
be what makes for powerful music.


>Well, that's a bit of a myth.  Many Punk pioneers could in fact play very 
>well. Pete was speaking of Punk's complete avoidance of any of Rock music's 
>foundations (blues, jazz, etc.).

So then they had nowhere to go.  How long can you play just one simple thing 
and stay interested in what you're doing.


> > I loved the techno sound.
>
>Yuck!

Pete's always been the master of techno.  There was reviewer fan guy who 
thought Pete WAS techno on Mick's album.  I suspect we'll hear some of it on 
a new album.


>Is Crazy Keets saying she wants The Who to jump on some sort of new musical 
>bandwagon?  Boy, that girl's got balls!

No, I want them to start the bandwagon.  A new direction for rock?  Sounds 
good to me.  The music business sucks these days.


> > >   (cough)
> >
> > Echinasea.
>
>Eh?

The herb.  It's an antiviral and immune stimulator and it will cut down the 
severity of colds.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com