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

Conceptual Wrestlemania!!!




   LETS GET READY TO RUMMMMMMMBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Hi Mark, Keets, Denise, Howie, etc.
    Sorry to intrude (if i am) but i am fascinated by this discussion and
feel i must jump in, if my comments are unwelcome i'll shove off uninsulted.
  
  >Which means, BTW, Lifehouse would have been a concept album not an opera.
        Except Pete DID have a story for LIFEHOUSE, which he hoped the songs
would tell. It WOULD have been a rock opera... Who's Next is not (in my
opinion) quite a conceptual album because the songs, seperated from the
whole, lost too much of the unifying theme. If, for example, "Pure and Easy"
had appeared on Who's Next, the recurring theme (in "The Song Is Over")
might've made it more cohesive a staement. Instead we have no recurring
melodies, several disparate subject matter, and a bunch of songs that seem
like seperate songs instead of part of a story. i know it's a fine line, but
that's my opinon. How do you guys feel on this?

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

   i also have to disagree strongly that McCartney's solo work rivals
Pete's. Maybe i'm blinded by Who fandom, but glance over even their most
commercial successes: compare the song list of Paul's "All My Best" or
"Wings Greatest" to Pete's "Coolwalkingsmoothtalking..." and you'll see what
i mean. Pete's ultimate solo statement: "The sea refuses no river, and right
now this river's banks are blown." Paul's: "Some people want to fill the
world with silly love songs, what's wrong with that?" You may think that's
unfair, but in alot of ways this song was Paul's philosophy on songwriting.
Pete's was about the spiritual inner self searching for God and the true
Self. Do they even friggin' compare?!?!? And if Paul was more successful in
his goals, maybe its because he aimed so much lower. And i LIKE his music,
fer crying out loud! But he's nowhere near Pete, D.

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

   And i think a majority of us here would agree that "Chinese Eyes" was
Pete's best. i've heard that sentiment reflected many times here.

> Get yourself
>a copy of the stereo PET SOUNDS.

    You know, i never have gotten into them. i bought "Pet Sounds" several
years ago, gave it several listens and sold it to a used CD place.
Overproduced complicated bubblegum frat rock remains such no matter how cool
Brian Wilson is... and he is, don't misunderstand me. i just can't stand
some of his music. i'm sure to get blasted for that opinion, as it goes
against every rock critic's bible, but i calls them as i sees them.

  >The afore-mentioned EXILE ON MAIN STREET is an exception to this rule, but
  >in the same way SPLHCB is.

    Okay, i love "Exile" (also a rock critic's bible opinion, but one i
agree with). But how is this a conceptual album? What cohesiveness (other
than exploring their blues influence) am i missing here?  i'm assuming there
is more than the blues thing to justify this statement, and i feel like a
fool because i've listened to the album for years, i love several concept
albums (duh, i'm a Who fan), and i have NEVER thought of "Exile on Main
Street" as a concept album. Please explain!

>> 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.

      Um, i'll not comment on the "Flat Earth" thing, except to say that you
should look it up, it's not literal. More relevently, i for one would love
to hear a version of "Lifehouse" that was definitive, spanned all eras and
told the whole story. Pete abandoned "Lifehouse" without a full script, only
an outlined story, in the early seventies. The word is he came back to it in
the mid-seventies at Roger's request-- Pete says in an interview that he
"finally got it", and it had to be done. So he began working on it again,
only to abandon it again. Whether he meant the WAY material to be
incorporated into the existing Lifehouse or to be a kind of New Lifehouse or
even a sequel to the never finished Lifehouse is only, so far as i can tell,
known to Pete. My guess is the WAY material was a seperate, similar peice.
WHO knows?
    The Lifehouse i want to compile is one that starts at the "Who's
Next"/"Odds and Sods"/"Young Vic" era, with a "sequel" beginning with "Who
Are You" and going through "Psychoderelict".  Incidentally, could the lack
of other people understanding "Lifehouse" and his vision been a contributing
factor to the alcoholic depression witnessed on the sadly brilliant "Who By
Numbers"? And isn't it ironic that the "failure" of the original Lifehouse
project led Townshend to grudgingly work on the unsurpassed epic
"Quadrophenia"? Thoughts i (and maybe all of you) have had before, but
wanted to share them here..............

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

   Barney Kessel, for one. Mose Allison for another. Not just songs, but
style. That's what i think he was going for on "Who Are You", in a few songs
anyway, a blending of their styles with his own rock style. i, for one,
thought it was beautiful. 

      That's all  (and plenty! sorry)  ------------- peace&anarchy, jeffree