Re: Understanding Lifehouse

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Back to what Pete saw, I am having trouble with the "oneness" part.  
> The note. The universal chord.  The vibrations.  The result of the 
> atoms moved by sound. 

That's the part I *don't* have a problem with.  I've read quite a bit
about "string theory" (a relatively recent, very promising physics 
theory) which contends that all matter, all particles, may in fact be
made up of....get this....vibrating loops of string!  

It's a very complicated theory & I surely don't profess to understand
all of it (or even much of it!), but doesn't the idea sound interesting
when compared to Pete's one-note/vibration idea?

Of course, string theory deals with physics in 10 dimensions, I believe,
(11, if you include time), & Pete never mentioned anything about that!
But still, to think that all matter may be made up of vibrations......
vibrating strings......wow.  It makes the noise parts in "Sparks" seem
even more beautifully primordial!

> Pete seemed to be mixing Science and Spiritual things and was trying 
> to reconcile them in his big mind.  

I agree but even Pete would probably admit that it was more "science fic-
tion" than "science."  Especially the part about graduating or disappear-
ing into a higher plane of consciousness.  

> He dared to probe into the meaning of everything.

An admirable task.  But not exactly belonging to Pete alone.  Many art-
ists, & not only musicians, have grappled with man's desire to know the
meaning of everything.  It's a universal theme.

> But for Pete to continue his entire career in pursuit of Lifehouse lets 
> us know that he saw more than merely making rock bigger than it was 
> supposed to be. 

I don't know.  Perhaps it was just the "one that got away."  And he felt
like he needed to tidy up that part of his artistic career.

I was shocked when he announced a few years back that he was going to at-
tempt the experimental side of it again, using information from fans to
try to create some (meaningful?) sound or note or song or whatever.  To me,
that's much more of an embarrassment than "Pinball Wizard!"  ;-)  Luckily,
casual rock fans know nothing of this.

> He admitted that rock was not the answer.  It is great fun and a great 
> way to express our feelings, but what did it accomplish?  Why does it 
> have to end?

I have no answers.  I guess we should just be thankful that Pete, as an
artist, is restless & keeps asking questions.  I just hope he knows when
to abandon a useless, unproductive idea & move on to something else.  It's
no good beating a dead LIFEHOUSE.
 
> If we are honest and if we look inside, we know that there *should* 
> be some kind of a universal oneness.  

Be careful here.  Don't assume something exists because you *think* it
should, or because you *hope* it does.  Reality doesn't ask for your opin-
ion when structuring & ordering the universe.  It doesn't ask for mine,
either.  Or Pete's.

> There is a wall to smash through and Pete knows it.  

Break on through to the other side.  We're into Doors territory here.   

> The oneness in the shows was just a place where Pete saw the temporary 
> situation that I believe he wanted to solve for mankind in a much larger 
> way.  Not just in rock.

So, if it didn't work, if the grand experiment failed, should he keep
attempting it?  Or should he focus his time & energy on other matters,
other ideas?


- SCHRADE in Akron