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

Re: Who Are You, anyway?



> After those three years of waiting you were not 'exactly impressed'.

Derick:

Exactly. I KNEW he could do better, and he hadn't come up to the standard.
OK, maybe I expect too much, but I don't think so. A novelist can get
better with age, and do his best work near the end of his life. So there's
no reason to think PT couldn't have continued to grow. In fact, I think
Siege would have been another QUAD, and WHITE CITY & PSYCHO are both in the
league...had they been Who albums, that is.

> However don't forget other things were also occupying Pete's time and the
others too.

I could buy that excuse for WBN (he still had two years there), but not
WAY...three years, after all! TOMMY was done by then, and TKAA & Quad not
started yet. Besides, he didn't do much for TKAA, and I don't know that he
did much for Quad either. Entwistle did, however...remixing the original
QUAD tracks included.
Three years is plenty of time to do everything and then some. I have never
been happy with the idea that a band is unable to make at least an album a
year. That is, IMHO, not to much to ask.

> they squeezed in several tours and concerts all in that period,

Well, now, that was a choice. It's not like they needed the money or had
anything to promote.

> Lastly, like it or him or not, Kenney Jones is a Who fact of life

I think Kenny does a passable job doing Keith's songs. Then he knows "where
to go" with the song. His own material, however, is rather lackluster. He's
a fine drummer, but The Who needed a fantastic drummer. My choice would
have been Carl Palmer, who had worked in a three man band before AND also
with Pete Townshend (produced the Arthur Brown album, which Palmer drummed
on) in the past. While hardly as spontaneous as Moon (no one is), he would
have been able to "fill in" the gaps. Hey, and even do Jazz if that's what
Pete wanted! He also wasn't working at the time, being between ELP and
Asia.

> I just don't think "New Song" is all that weak.

Keets:

Your priviledge, of course.

> It's got a great double 
> meaning related to the endless reincarnation theme of Lifehouse

Hmmm...I never saw reincarnation in any interpretation of Lifehouse. It was
my understanding that the people ascend together, but nothing I've seen has
them coming back. I'm not saying it's not an element...PT had certainly
considered the concept (You Came Back), but is it part of the Lifehouse
story?

> Do you just not like what it says about the fans?

Not really, because I hold myself (and most Who fans, actually) above the
sort of "whatever you do is fine with me" attitude. Pete might have
believed we were no better than Stones/Zeppelin fans, being exposed to only
the most extreme, but I think your average Who fan (like us here) demand
more from the band and the songwriting.

> The moral 
> of that story is, don't mess with Pete Townshend; you'll end up in one 
> of his songs.

Well, you know...I think I could live with that!

> What I think was that PT wanted to change The Who sound to something 
> more like his solo albums

I completely agree with you here. Starting with FD.

> The fans rejected it though, so he quit.   

But not here. I think he quit for the very reasons he stated at the
time...he didn't want to turn into a parody of the band, endlessly
recycling the "same old song with a few new rhymes." He was writing Siege
during the `82 tour, but he had to see that he would be endlessly trapped
into being an "oldies" band and I believe he has asperations beyond that.
This reasoning has been an element in every interview I've seen where he
addresses getting the band back together.

> Hmmm.  I do.

I would hope so, since you wrote it!

> It was lots faster, which forced a softer sound.

I'd say that was a result of Punk, and standard practice at the time. If
you'll go back and check, most bands in the `60's/`70's tended to slow down
their live performances (there's a great story about how the Beatles used
to do half hour versions of Ray Charles' What'd I Say in Hamburg), with a
few exceptions (like ELP), in order to "give them weight" and make them
"heavier." Punk changed all of that...just a few years before 1982. Check
out live albums from this period and see if you notice the change. A great
example would be the Stones' LOVE YOU LIVE (1977) and YA-YA's (1969)
compared to 1981's STILL LIFE.

> A different vantage point.  Who's Next is a sweet romantic thing 
> compared to WAY.  WAY sounds older, wiser and sadder, but that doesn't 
> make it weaker.  It develops the philosophical core of Lifehouse. 

I just don't see that, based on what I know of Lifehouse (and who knows all
that much, after all, except Pete Townshend?). While it's true that the
songs were never meant to directly reflect the action of the story (like in
T & QUAD), I cannot see how the WAY songs fit at ALL. Then, too, there was
a BBC special on Lifehouse (don't recall the exact date, but it's my
recollection it was aired just after PSYCHO was released) which included
many WN songs but NONE of the WAY songs. Which I'll admit may mean nothing.
I just have a feeling the WAY songs have nothing to do with Lifehouse. 
I think as far as the philisophical core of the story, that would be in
Pure And Easy.

> Any other kinds of music?  Have you listened to classical, new age, 
> opera, blues, contemporary composers?

Oh, yeah, I listen to all sorts of music...after all, I'm sitting here
surrounded by thousands of CDs for about 50 hours a week. I have Jazz days
and Blues days each week, for instance. And there's no way to study any
sort of music in a vaccuum.

> Rock and roll is actually fairly 
> limited as to rhythm and technique; as soon as you change the beat, 
> you're into another genre.

RnR, yes; Rock, no. Rock is encompassing, and a larger genre than any
other. Many beats, any instrument, incorporating all known forms of music.
Remember, I study Rock music...not RnR, which is merely a sub-genre of
Rock. The Who never were a RnR band. The closest them ever came was playing
My Generation Blues on the 1975/76 tour.

> You think WAY is weaker because you don't 
> hear that strong RnR technique, but actually it's just more progressive.

No, I think WAY is weaker because Townshend had written much better songs
and music, and didn't this time. I hear absolutely no progression, just a
leaning toward Jazz.

> Check out the Juilliard Orchestra playing his music and tell me that
again.

Orchestras adapting Rock music is not what we're talking about here. Show
me another form of music PT wrote/performed in which he was successful at
creating new forms...which is what he did in Rock.

> PT doesn't conform very well to any genre.

He DID invent Rock, the most encompassing of all genres. So I'd say he
defined it.

> What?  Psychoderelict?

Yeah, that's it.

> Sure, but there are a few years in between, with assorted wear and tear. 


That's my point. WAY was an inferior performance.

> And it's different situations.  All LAL required was volume.

No, no, NO! YMB is more than just "volume," for instance, and then there's
the TOMMY section...no, I don't subscribe the the idea that volume was all
there is to one of the greatest live albums ever released!

> I can't complain about Moon's performance on WAY.  I think the shift 
> away from RnR was likely difficult for him, as it required different

At least in one aspect you are correct: Keith was so trashed he was unable
to play on Music Must Change. Again, I invite you to read the history of
the making of WAY. It might give you some insight. It's available in many
places, but I'd suggest Before I Get Old by Dave Marsh. It might be the
most detailed version, other faults the book may have notwithstanding.
Regardless, the stated reason Glyn Johns bailed on producing before
completion was the condition of one Keith Moon, esquire. Johns had other
obligations, and Moon made the sessions go too long...and endless takes
which were unusable. It must have been extremely frustrating, especially
since it's hard to get angry with Keith the clown.
Also, keep in mind it was this recording session which made the others
decide Moon was out of the band and relegated to being the head of their
movie studio (the name escapes me; Shepherd-something). That's gotta say
something about his performance!

> though, the drumming fits the music.  By now you'll have figured out 
> that I like WAY better than LAL. (Sacrilige!)    

You have the right.

> He's struggling with the technique.

Hell, he had plenty enough time to get it right or adapt. Why release an
inferior product, unless that's the best you can do? Especially when you're
Pete Townshend!