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

WBN, SO, Lifehouse, & Rog's follies




> IMHO WBN is a very nice break back to the basics without the synthisizers
and
> all.

I agree; I was just disappointed after the superior QUAD.

> I think that the Raels and Armenia are Pete's best songwriting efforts
> outside of the rock operas.  There's something about these songs that
evoke
> the fantastical.

Carl:

Well, I might agree with you except Armenia wasn't written by Pete, but his
driver who later went on to head Thunderclap Newman. I love the song,
though...no matter who wrote it.
Rael WAS meant to be sort of a Rock Opera, or perhaps a mini-opera like
AQO. I'm going to sit down and listen to the demo again and post the lyrics
here, whenever I get a moment or two...

> "This is magnificent, this idea and we have to have    another go," and 
> that’s what produced the second incarnation of
> Lifehouse which produced "Who Are You" and another burst of activity on 
> the script.

Keets:

I'm not denying that WAY was involved (in some way) with Lifehouse, but if
you take each individual song by itself you'll see that it doesn't come
close to fitting the story. Maybe New Song, but "oh BOY" if that's true.
Sister Disco certainly doesn't, unless Pete expected Disco to last THAT
long (and I'll admit it's lasted far longer than I'm comfortable
with)...but even so, the lyrics themselves don't lend themselves to the
Lifehouse story at all. Music Must Change, perhaps but doubtful...since in
the story music is illegal,  there was no music to change, you see. Guitar
And Pen I suppose could be adapted for the story, but again I see it as too
straightforward for Lifehouse...that is to say, it seems to be exactly what
it is: a song about songwriting. And again, music was illegal...
Love Is Coming Down, again perhaps but "oh BOY!" I don't see that it
contributes to the story, or to the album for that matter. And Who Are You
we KNOW came from the meeting with two of the Sex Pistols, so couldn't be
part of the Lifehouse story.
So, like I said before, I know Pete has said this stuff...but I don't buy
it. Now I think you can see why. I may not understand Lifehouse any better
than anyone else, but certain things are clear. I do believe I could
understand Lifehouse (all of us could), if only Pete would have stated it
clearly instead of this today and that tomorrow.

> It has to do with the experience suits, wherein (apparently) people get 
> trapped into reliving the same life over and over.  This really is a 
> brilliant concept.

IMHO, Pete's most brilliant of predictions. In a lifetime of brilliance,
this may be his most shining moment.
I see what you mean...I suppose New Song COULD be about this, although it
does seem more rooted in your basic, run-of-the-mill reality rather than
the Lifehouse story. "My hairline ain't exactly superstar" is one line I
can point to that would have NO place in Lifehouse. Right?

> This is the same thing I said.  He quit because the fans rejected his 
> efforts to find a new direction.

Well, it's not the same thing you said. For one thing, I remember IT'S HARD
entering the charts at number two...the highest entry for ANY Who album,
ever. It was commented on at the time! So there's no way it was a rejection
by the fans. Both WAY and FD also did very well, as far as sales goes. And
that would be the measure, unless you want to consider the instantly sold
out concerts everywhere they played too.
No, it was a rejection of the band by Pete Townshend that made him decide
to quit. Originally, they were still going to do studio albums but by 1983
he'd abandoned that idea...most likely because Entwistle stated he would
not be in the band if they weren't going to tour. And I'd bet Daltrey
echoed that.
Pete felt the band's past too heavy a burden, and it's all perspective
since he SHOULD have seen it as an opportunity. However, with a strong solo
career he probably felt freer without Rog & John demanding he do what they
wanted to do (and he didn't).

> Sounds like heavy metal to me.

In those days before "Speed Metal," HM was still slow and ponderous. And
Speed Metal appeared in the `80's.

> Radio jock?

No, I own a used CD store or two (Generations Used CDs; guess where the
name came from)...which means there's no plastic wrapper to stop me from
taking out any CD and playing it. Which is what I do, all day 6 days a
week.

> Thanks for the definition.  It helps if we're talking about the same 
> thing.  Your concept seems to embrace popular music in general--is that 
> right?

No, Celine Dion (for instance) is not Rock music. Madonna either. Rock
music can be traced from Blues to Chuck Berry/Elvis/Little Richard/etc. to
the Beach Boys to The Beatles to The Stone & Kinks (still RnR or Blues),
then MG was released and everything changed. Look at the music in the year
1965 as opposed to all the muisc which preceeded it.

> According to your definition, I don't think he's ever left the rock 
> genre, as he still tries to sell in the popular marketplace.

As the Grammys last night illustrated clearly enough, Rock music is no
longer very popular. Now it's extremely Pop and R&B oriented...for the
moment, anyway.

> I actually 
> think The Who has been responsible for breaking down some of the 
> barriers between popular and classically trained composers.

I agree, and many more barriers than just this one. By breaking the
"formula" which was present before they burst on the scene, they made
artists consider all sorts of new possibilities.

> Invented it?  I don't think so.  He was part of the effort, but other 
> bands have been just as broad-minded and progressive.

I maintain, against plenty of resistance believe me, that his songs broke
the formula the bands were subscribing to...all strongly rooted in the
Blues. Was he the only songwriter to do it? No, Lou Reed would also get
credit (for one). But as far as I can tell The Who were the only band with
a high enough profile to get it heard. For instance, they opened for The
Beatles just four months before John Lennon decided to record the first
song with feedback (I Feel Fine). Coincidence? I don't think so.

> Okay, this WAS hyperbole.  There is a technique for large venues, but it 
> doesn't allow for fine nuances of expression like studio albums do.

I'd say that live performance allows for more nuances, they're just not as
preconceived. And for me (at least), that's a GOOD thing!

> But RD 
> doesn't want to be confined to one genre any more that PT does, so he's 
> found different ways to sing depending on the situation.  (Looks like 
> he's out to conquer Broadway just lately.) I mean, how many openings are 
> there for 55 year old rock singers?  

Rog...he's never struck me as all that bright. I mean, his solo choices
have been poor most of the time, for instance. I'd like to see an non-Who
fan review of his Xmas Carol performance, and while he was decent doing
Wizard Of Oz it was a "Rock Star" sort of thing and he just "did Daltrey"
anyway. I didn't see his performance in Listomania, or the smaller parts in
other movies, as particularly notable. My question might be: would have
have secured any of these roles had he not been the lead singer for The Who
first?