[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