[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wrestling with concepts, Dirk McQuickly, & all that Jazz
>>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.
>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.
>> 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
Catch my previous post on "White City?" If PT had included the movie
script on the album, then it would have come out something like
"Psychoderelict." Townshend seems to have gone somewhere beyond the
rock opera lately, off into uncharted territory again.
>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.
Isn't there a story involved in "Lifehouse"?
>> Other bands don't. I saw some guy on VH1 who said it generally took
him a year to write one song.
>
>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?
Well, I surf a lot and catch the tail end of stuff. This was some young
guy, and so likely more popular than the slightly more prolific
Townshend.
>> 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.
Hmmm. This implies that you have to preplan the whole thing. It's not
always done that way. The opposing group are "process" types, who don't
know what they're doing until they're into it. Lots of artist fall into
this group BTW. They're not especially noted for preplanning--more a
characteristic of technical types.
>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.
I agree. It doesn't strike me as one, even though a story was
preplanned. Of course, we figure this is just a fragment of the whole
thing.
>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.
We haven't come up with any hard definition yet, but WAY strikes me as
fairly conceptual. All the songs have to do with birth/rebirth/retread,
a unifying theme.
>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?"
I rather think they continue to progress, only in directions some fans
don't particularly care for.
>> And that's the gauge of a good voice?
>
>The abilities within. And its uniqueness, which is certainly present
with Rog.
How does this describe a primal scream? Do you mean the abilities
within are what make RD's voice what it is? That's the same thing I
said.
>> 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,
Check further back, though. Even on "Tommy," he sounded like he was
working at it pretty hard.
>> 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.
I rather like the idea of the WAY version, the incorporation of the
Eastern salvation philosophy. That gives it more depth as an
intellectual piece.
keets
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com