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

Re: Progression, Magic, TED End, Chaos, Lifehouse, Disco




> I'll hop back on for a second here.  What you're calling "rock" is 
> actually progressive rock, I think

Keets:

Nope. Although one would expect any music to progress (except Disco),
Progressive Rock is more like Yes and King Crimson etc. etc. Not The Who,
despite their progression.

> includes dance music, punk, heavy metal, bubble-gum pop and Marilyn 
> Manson.

Everything you mention above fits, or can be fit, into the Rock catagory
except Dance Music. Which has its roots in Soul/R&B, but followed a
distinctly different path than Rock.

> All these things aren't going to diappear because you edit them 
> out of your definition.          

It's not MY definition. Although I certainly wish Disco and Dance Music
would disappear, I have no control over their appearance or disappearance.

SIM-SIM-SOLABIM!

See, it doesn't work. You can't say I didn't try!

> Let's hope so.

Why, do you LIKE inferior music???

> TED will be awfully bored if they have to go on living  in 1970.  

TED is a thing of the past. Although this sort of thing has been said
before, I have a gut feeling PT will never work with the others again.
And if Lifehouse was done best in 1970, it's stupid to change it for the
sake of change. An example: while Townshend had a lot of success with the
play version of TOMMY, I still think the story in the original is far
superior.

> BTW, after our recent discussion of WAY, someone pointed out that this 
> album may have provided some of the roots of the techno movement.  
> Depeche Mode, the first techno band to hit big, were getting their start 
> in England about the time WAY came out.

That theory ignores a LOT of other bands, like ELP for instance. I'd say No
to that.

> I am of the opinion that defining music as "blues" and "jazz" and "rock"
> really isn't relevant anymore.

Carl:

It always helps if one can define what one's discussing. Otherwise, it's
chaos.

> All these songs fit with the concept of WAY without any problem.

Keets:

But none fit into the concept of Lifehouse, as described so far anyway. And
DOES WAY have a concept? It was not considered a concept album at the time
it came out.
If it is, then WBN has the same concept and did it better.

> Got anything against JAE?  

No, I just don't think he wrote any of Lifehouse.

> God, Mark, what kind of breakdown would you have if Roger wrote a song 
> for the final version of "Lifehouse?"

Given Daltrey's songwriting "ability," I just might have a breakdown.

> it. But i don't think ALL the songs were written with "Lifehouse" in
mind.
> For example, "905" is an excellent song, (Most underrated Who song ever
> someone here wrote recently, can't disagree although "Dangerous" is a
close
> second) but if it was intended as a "Lifehouse" track it changes the
> storyline.

Jeffree:

Yeah, just a little bit!!!! The same is true with ALL of the WAY songs.

> What do you mean?  TED might not have reached their peak yet.

Keets:

HA! You're SUCH an optimist!

Although I will conceed that it's Rog that's the weak link at this point.
Pete is a better guitarist and as good a vocalist as ever, and while John
has lost his voice he's still the best bass player in the world.

> It was also a reaction against progressive rock, wasn't it?

Lucas:

I think you're giving Disco "songwriters" (gee, it was hard to write that)
more credit than they're due. It was no more than a way to make money.
Using studio musicians instead of paying a known band (which had put in
years and lots of work for their fame) cost the label a WHOLE lot less.
Playing 45's (aka singles) in the clubs was FAR cheaper than hiring a band,
you see...and these are the MAIN reasons Disco became so popular. The
buying public was manipulated from day one, sad to say.