[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WBN, SO, Lifehouse, & Rog's follies
>> "This is magnificent, this idea and we have to have another go," and
thats what produced the second incarnation of Lifehouse which produced
"Who Are You" and another burst of activity on the script.
>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.
What story? The first one? The second? Or the current one? Since
it's never been published, it's not set in stone, much less print.
>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's his music and he gets to change it if he wants to. Folks complain
about the different versions of "Tommy", too. That somewhat annoys me
too, but I can see how it's justified, as it has to be adapted to
different media and time requirements, and has to please the director
and the target audience and such. I can't complain too much, as the
result promotes the music--and inspires Pete to try something else.
Since "Lifehouse" has never been published, though, I'd actually expect
Pete to update the story/script to nineties concerns rather than go with
the script he wrote in the seventies. Otherwise it would be pretty
stale.
>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).
WAY seems to be how he felt at the time.
>> 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.
Okay. Sounds like speed metal, then. Remember who we're talking about
here. The Who are trend setters, not followers. The Who's sixties and
seventies stuff, set to the faster Punk beat, and with the extra
instrumentation added, predicted the speed metal sound of the eighties.
>>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.
Hmmm. I can see about Celine Dion, but I thought Madonna was generally
considered to work within the rock genre (as a marketing genius, though,
she also works outside of 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.
Much of Pop and R&B could be considered a branch of rock, as could rap,
actually, becuase of the rhythm track. (Actually, I wonder about the
local Blockbuster's definitions, as they place The Chieftains in "Rock
Music." Go figure.)
>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.
Okay, I see what you mean. I don't know that "invented" is the right
word, though--maybe "opened the doors" for rock to become what it did.
>>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!
Nuance by definition means something subtle, which is considerably less
likely to be heard over the bass at a Who live performance. I agree
about the vitues of live performance, though--it's definitely a test of
ability.
keets
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com