Wrestling with concepts, Dirk McQuickly, & all that Jazz

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>      Some people consider "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" a
concept
> album. Is it (to you)? If so, then WAY should be considered one also.

Jeffree:

I did say, not long ago, that SPLHCB was a concept album by virtue of sound
only. There are two songs that connect and one of these reprises, but other
than that it is not a concept album. Even Lennon said as much.
The original idea was to write an album about their childhood, as if they
were another band entirely, but the idea was quickly abandoned.

> Unifying theme, but individual songs that do not tell a story. i consider
it
> a concept album, but not a rock opera, which tells a story ("Quad",
"Tommy",
> "Psychoderelict"). "White City" is a concept album, but not a rock opera

There IS a difference, as you point out. As I can read it, a concept album
is an album with a common theme...whereas a Rock Opera is as you describe
it, most accurately, above.
Which means, BTW, Lifehouse would have been a concept album not an opera.

> >Sorry guys.  Whatever we all think of Pete's solo stuff, it isn't even
in
> the same ballpark as McCartney's.

Denise:

I agree, although not the way he thinks. McCartney's solo work, with a very
few exceptions, was absolute radio pap. Garbage. Not worthy of mention in
relation to Townshend's worse song. Even his "throw-away" stuff, like Never
Ask Me, is far beyond anything Paul ever achieved.

> I think even the most diehard Pete fan
> would have to concede that only Empty Glass was on a level of acceptance
as

I think that's quite an odd opinion. The kind written by someone completely
unfamiliar with any Townshend work other than what was on the radio.
Otherwise, I cannot see how any sane individual could write it. That's
it...it must have been a joke. 
EG was Pete's most commercial work, but not even his best. THIS die-hard PT
fan conceeds only that Paulie didn't touch even the EG standard after RAM,
and most of the time didn't even reach the Peter Frampton level. Sure, it
sold...but so does Madonna and Hanson and so on.
I mean...Coming Up! REALLY! Garbage, like Disco!

> I totally agree with you that Pete is a musical genius..but The Beatles
had
> two members that were....which made their music more versatile.

I'd say the main difference is the level on which they wrote (and thought,
perhaps). L/Mc were both on the "everyman" level, which is one main reason
they were so popular...whereas PT was an intellectual writer. Not everyone
would "get it." In fact, that's why PT became so frustrated with those who
would chant "Jump! Jump!"

> Beatles...HARMONY...wow...no other rock and roll band has ever come
close!

Uh...ever heard of The Beach Boys, who were recording it before The Beatles
even recorded backing Tony Sheridan? And better, I might add. Get yourself
a copy of the stereo PET SOUNDS. If you like harmony, you'll love it. Hell,
if you like good music you'll love it.

> Would just like to point out that I wasn't the poster of the comments on
Paul.

Howie:

And who can blame you for denying them!

> Other bands don't.  I saw some guy on VH1 who said it generally took him 
> a year to write one song.  

Keets:

Must not have been much of a song, if you can't even remember who said it.
Maybe he should have spent his time doing something else?

> This still doesn't pin down the requirements.  Is this something that's 
> individual opinion again?

I don't think so. To be a concept album, the writer(s) would have to sit
down with the intent of writing a concept album. A good example of what I
mean would be WN, which was written to be a concept album but the idea was
abandoned...yet the same songs released! But it's not a concept album, as
I'm sure you'll agree.
WAY happened in a very similar fashion. PT stated that he had the idea for
a concept, and John also (but a different one), but in the end they just
recorded the songs and released them. So we see that while there are
similar themes, the album is not a concept album.
The afore-mentioned EXILE ON MAIN STREET is an exception to this rule, but
in the same way SPLHCB is.

> Then are you applying different standards to judge what he did with The 
> Who and what he did for himself?  Those albums don't exactly sound like 
> Quad, or LAL.  They're much more quiet and introspective.  Would you 
> accept The Who if they sounded like that?

I do when they do, like Imagine A Man or Sunrise. I really don't understand
why you keep assigning me the least of standards, as if I only like The Who
when they're loud or something. If that were the case, I'd be a Black
Sabbath fan, or scream about how Zeppelin ruled.
No, it's the intellectual stimulation which draws me to the band. The
progression, and innovation. If QUAD sounded like LAL I wouldn't have liked
it. I would have said: "Can't they do anything else?"

> And that's the gauge of a good voice?

The abilities within. And its uniqueness, which is certainly present with
Rog.

> Starting off, RD had a strong voice and a wide range and that's about 
> it.  It was a really plain voice, almost uninteresting at best and too 
> sharp at worst

I disagree strongly. From SO to WAY, Rog's voice was Thunder from the Gods.
No one else came close, except Jim Morrison in his very best (and few)
moments and Plant until he ragged his voice out (by 1973).
For my High School paper, way back in 1970, I described Rog's voice on LAL
as "A triumphant Viking standing on the prow of his ship, singing songs of
victory."

> Then why in the world are you hoping he'll go with the 1970's model 
> "Lifehouse" and not an updated something that could include new 
> material?

What I said was the 1970 version was far superior to the supposed WAY
version you were describing, and I'd rather he use the earlier because it
is better. Naturally, if he can come up with something better that would be
nice. However, the 1970 version IS brilliant enough to be done as is, and
it will be a shame if it's altered.

> But maybe everybody doesn't think it's inferior.

It's possible, I SUPPOSE. Some people don't think we really landed on the
moon. There's a "Flat Earth" society, too, I hear.

> Who has he copied?  Do you think PT is imitating jazz?

I think on WAY he used some Jazz licks, but I can't tell you exactly who he
copied. But at least I do know Jazz when I hear it...I'm listening to
Brubeck right now, in fact...my favorite.

> I don't think it sounds like jazz.

Listen to the guitar riffs on MMC, for instance. G&P has some distinctive
Jazz licks, too.

> PT couldn't really turn The Who in that direction until after KM died.

Name one song. I think he went more Pop. Power Pop, as defined by Paul
Weller of The Jam. Like Happy Jack.

> KM was NOT a jazz drummer.

He was beyond Jazz, but I do believe he could have done Jazz. Buddy Rich
was a main influence, according to Keith himself. Unfortunately, by the
time WAY was recorded he could barely do any type of music.

> Okay.  Maybe they did.  Ask for a tour next.  ;)

I did already.