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

Whofest madness, Conceptual madness, Synth madness (but no Madness madness)




> Oh, I know.  I'm sure you know that The Who's following has always been
in
> the industrial Midwest (plus the coasts, of course), not the southern
> central US.

Alan:

You're absolutely right. I'm thinking along these lines: it's a vacation
where you get to hang out with people who share a common interest and
interact with on this (and other) list(s). Therefore, it should be
somewhere away from home. So I'll be the only one to suffer no vacation, if
we have it here, but I'll just have to learn to live with it...I'll be
compensated by the good company, I hope.

> No...but I have helped organize conferences before, and it's a lot of
work.
> If you want to have a meeting in Los Angeles in someone's living room for
> snax and music it's no problem (although not many people may come).

That IS another reason I think MB would be good. There are so many places
to meet and things to do that a living room wouldn't handle...and there IS
enough of a draw, even without band members, because the city itself is a
draw all by itself.
There are bars we can occupy...places we can meet...and, as always, there's
the Baba Center. There will be plenty of live music, but not knowing when I
can't say who. We're looking at concerts by Doobie Brothers, Slayer,
Bachman-Turner, Goo Goo Dolls, & Jerry Garcia Band...all in the next week
or so, and it's not even the season yet. There are always Blues bands
playing around town, and there are some great local bands too.

> This all sounds great.  If it happens I would love to attend.

Are you trying to tell me I need to start saving up beer money after all?
Good!

> "Black...white...ebony, ivory...nah, too stupid." :-D.  Only McCartney,
had
> the balls to cash in on the cheap slamdunk.

It's way too easy for me to agree with that, so I'll take the high road...

> "Lifehouse" isn't one as such. i had always thought it would be, in its
> final state, but it sounds like it wouldn't. 

Jeffree:

This according to Pete, keep in mind. I do believe this is one major reason
he's had such a hard time explaining the story to people. The story is
THIS, the music is THAT, and it's hard to see how they come together.

> and his music or his philosophy. i think we agree here if i read you
right.

Definitely.

> i was
> saying i personally never cared for the Beach Boys in general, and to me
> "Pet Sounds"( however influential, universal, unisexual, or even
definitive
> it is) doesn't sound much different than their other stuff TO ME. <---
this
> is important.

It IS important, because one reason it wasn't considered as much when it
was released is that it didn't sound like the other stuff the BB had
released (although in retrospect it doesn't appear to be quite so
different). I don't know if you were around when it was released, but from
the perspective of someone who experienced it as it was released, it seemed
to be extremely different.
Sometimes, perspective is everything.

> them that much. TO ME, this is the kind of music the Who wanted to smash
> over the head with a guitar. My opinion, and i could be wrong, but there
'tis.

If it's your opinion, it cannot be wrong. BUT it's fair to say that Moon
and to some extent the other band members were BB fans. A lot of that sound
is on SO. I'd be willing to be PET SOUNDS influenced that album (I've never
seen anything to confirm this), as it's hard to imagine SGT PEPPERS
did...since the band was probably in the studio by that time it came out,
and certainly Pete must have already written the songs at least.

>    Okay, but we're crossing into very, very murky waters here if we say
this
> qualifies as a concept record. i would urge you to concede it is
definitely NOT.

ALMOST a concept album.

> Fogerty's recent album (i think its called "Blue Moon Swamp"?) where he
has
> said he sat down with the intent of writing songs that could have been
CCR

BOY, did he miss on THAT one! CENTERFIELD is more like it.

> Sonically Conceptual Album:  Where a specific style of music is explored
by
> an artist who usually is associated with a different style.
Examples:"Exile"
> Stones, Clapton's "From The Cradle", Joe Jackson's "Jumpin' Jive" (all
> swing), Steve Miller's Jazz record

I'll agree with you on EXILE and JJ (great album, that), and I haven't
heard the Miller album but wouldn't count CRADLE. That's just another
Clapton Blues album, and one that proves he's at his best when performing
someone else's songs. If that one is a concept album, the so must be
Bowie's PINUPS, which consists of his tribute to his influences (including
two Who songs, ICE and AAA). Hmmm...I guess that would bring JJ back into
the grey area...

> Thematically Conceptual Album: Where an idea is explored throughout all
or
> most of an album's lyrics. Examples: "Master of Puppets" Metallica,
"Captain
> Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy" Elton John, "Sell Out",  

Agreed.

> Rock Opera Conceptual Album: Music and lyrics used to tell a story.
> Examples: "Tommy", "Quadrophenia", "Kilroy Was Here" Styx, "The Elder"
Kiss,
> "Operation: Mindcrime" Queensryche, "Psychoderelict"

Agreed here too. And there are many examples.

> like we're doing. i thought that the Rock Opera and Concept Album
> distinction was good enough, but it appears i have some more thinking to
do
> as to what actually constitutes a Concept Album.

It never hurts to expand one's mental boundaries. Thinking about these
things, considering them, definitely gives you a different perspective even
if you end up with the same defintions.

> ??? Did you forget the who also used synthesizers? They were one of the
> first bands to use it, as I recall... And they did synthesizers loops...

Lucas:

The first ELP album was released a year earlier than WN, and there are
plenty of people who used synths before The Who. Just not as well (little
joke there).
I don't know about the programming itself, as Ty mentions, but Atkins was
incorrect about the first synthesizer on album. When did SWITCHED ON BACH
come out? 1968, wasn't it? And even so, I'm going to have to think about
the first synthesizer on album...The Who used one, sparingly, on TOMMY when
it comes down to it (isn't that what we hear at the beginning of Sparks?).
And The Beatles certainly used one on ABBEY ROAD (also 1969, you can hear
it on Maxwell's Silver Hammer).

> Does anyone have the LP "Who's Missing"? I just got it a couple of days
ago
> and I think that it has some really good tracks.  Any comments on it?

Carl:

Get it, and TWO'S MISSING also if you run across it. Both are out of print,
and both have tracks not now available on CD. One advantage of the LPs is
they have notes written by Pete and John, whereas MCA generously omitted
them from the CD release.