Re: Pete's Pissy Mood

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>But an artist *can* create something original keeping within the framework 
>of "Rock."  Originality doesn't necessarily mean creating some kind of 
>brand new musical genre completely outside of what's come before it.  Rock 
>would've died in the 50's if that were the case.

There's been quite a bit of discussion here about whether rock is really 
dead or whether it can be revitalized.  Didn't we say the lifespan for a new 
musical genre is about 20 years?  At about that point, Pete started writing 
things like "The Music Must Change."

In a genre as old and tired as rock, can anybody write anything (using the 
strict definition) that hasn't already been done?  Yeah, I know Radiohead is 
classified as "rock" but I found the Chieftains in the rock bins at the 
local mall, too.  Neither one quite meets the strict definition.


> > Everybody's trying to trap Pete into a rock album, when that's what he 
>left behind a long time ago.
>
>Um....do you think maybe that's because The Who are a *ROCK* band?

Nah.  They ARE heavily identified with the genre, but they're pretty much 
unclassifiable.  We've gone through this before.  "Eminence Front" is a 
swing beat.  "One Life's Enough for Me" could be a Mancini piece.  What 
would you call "Blue, Red and Gray?"  "Love Reign O'er Me?"  These songs are 
not rock (using the strict definition).

(Shut up, Mark!)


> > 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.
>
>Well, he's not free of The Who now.  Time for Pete to let go of those silly 
>ideas & write some Rock tunes.  He's a professional, right?

Yeah, but rock is dull and boring.  Three chords, two-four beat.  The Who 
has never played that.  Let Pete do what he wants.


> > Just about every show they've done has some kind of experiment in it.
>
>Well, that might be an exaggeration.  Some may say their current shows have 
>been too conservative.

Same old songs, but they're experimenting with different sounds, tempos and 
beats.  Some of the jams are standard, but last tour featured some new ones 
that had the potential to become new songs.


> > Like I said, I don't want to limit what they do.  Every album they've 
>ever done is different,
>
>But they've all been *ROCK* albums, correct?  I totally agree that The 
>Who's album catalogue is a varied mix of styles & themes, but I still 
>maintain that each one of them is *ROCK* album.

You find them in the rock music bins, but I don't think they're strictly 
rock.  The Who was playing fairly complex music as soon as the got the 
line-up together, adding elements from blues, jazz and Celtic music (Let's 
see if I can get that discussion going again!), plus whatever else caught 
their ears.  I think they've always been on the fringes of rock.  And WAY is 
a real departure.


>See, we differ here.  I'd be thrilled if the new album had the *sound* of 
>WN or QUAD & some fresh, up-to-date themes to go along with it.  And I 
>wouldn't be adverse to some techno-tinkering, as long as it's not the 
>*groundwork* of the whole album.  Seasoning, yes.  Main course, no.

WHO'S NEXT or QUAD are marginal rock.  Pete may not be too far off QUAD now, 
as it needed the bigger band to carry it off.

"Crossroads Now" is the latest we've heard.  It sounded orchestral to 
me--coming from their experience with larger bands, I'm sure--but "scored" 
for a four-piece.  There were voices that traded off, and themes that (sort 
of) repeated.  It included nice changes in dynamics, etc.  I think Pete has 
turned into a composer.

Would more work like that be okay?


> > It comes out like it comes out.
>
>Atleast we *hope* it's gonna come out!

Sounds like it's going to come out.


> > Pete's always been the master of techno.
>
>You're confusing him with Kraftwerk!

Nah.  Pete started with feedback right away.  Really, there was some guy on 
Amazon.com that thought Pete was part of the techno effects on Mick's album, 
and not a live guitarist at all.


> > No, I want them to start the bandwagon.
>
>They can do that within the confines of Rock, though.

Well, okay.  We'll use Mark's definition.  Radiohead would fit into it, too.


> > A new direction for rock?  Sounds good to me.
>
>Ah-ha!  You said the "R" word!!

I don't have anything against rock.  It's good stuff.  But the 
Sixties/Seventies/Eighties verison is definitely old and tired.


>I've been drinking lots of tea.  Feeling a bit better now.

Good.  Just in time to go to work on Monday, right?  Don't you just hate 
being sick on the week-ends?


:)
keets

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com