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

Repeat when necessary; Lifehouse news; the great CD debate




> Have you ever smoked pot, or spun round and round until you fell down, or
> ridden a roller coaster?  Have you ever done any of these more than once?
> Why?  It's just the same old thing.

Alan:

Don't know about the spinning or roller coaster, but smoking Pot is not the
same thing each time. Every circumstance is a factor. Mulitple shows,
unless one doesn't pay attention to the band, are going to be extremely
similar. Too, would you go on a roller coaster 20 times in a row? I doubt
it. Twice a year would be enough, otherwise as BB King said "The thrill is
gone." The same applies to the movie reasoning you use; I have the DVD of
The Who at IOW, but have watched it only once in two months and am no hurry
to see it again. Still, it's worth having in perfect form 10 years from
now.

> risk of seeing them on an off night.  Conversely, the more shows you see
> the more you're likely to catch the once-in-a-tour incandescent
performance
> that IS the measure of that tour.

That's IF you're still paying attention. Repeating is most likely to dull
the senses after a while. You know what a short attention span we Americans
have...

> 3) If you see multiple shows, you start noticing the differences, and if
> you see enough shows you can see it evolve within its structure.

This is certainly reasonable. I found the `97 Raleigh show to be far
superior to the MSG `96 show. Although the same goal could be achieved by
going to the first and last shows.

> shows).  With shows in which the setlist can vary more, I could point out
> that seeing multiple shows increases the chances of seeing "rare" songs
> that are only played for a couple of shows.

Again, IF you can keep up that sort of attention level.

> The psychic armor I had to grow to get past the "rooty toot toot tooty
> tooty toot toot" in "Tattoo" allowed me to sail through DOL's "dit
duh-dit
> dit dit dits" without much trouble.

I see what you mean, but one would think someone would realize it's 30
years later. At least "Rooty-toot-toot" in 1967 wasn't THAT far off. Ever
hear The Archies?

> Unfortunately, there is.  According to a source in the John Entwistle
Band, Pete
> recently wrote to both Roger and John saying that he would NOT take part
in any
> live version of Lifehouse.

Keets:

Please note Brian's post here. See, it's useful to state both
options...you're always right that way, you see.

> Hi All, Er, Brian's message does not sound good does it ?

Derick:

Rog and John could still tour it w/o Pete.

> The problem with taking chances is that you can lose a bundle.

Keets:

Like any business venture, it could be handled correctly and make money.
Even the some-what successful QUAD tour wasn't marketed properly. Daltrey's
symphonic tour was doomed, because you're talking about transporting and
housing how many people? And not just a bunch of Rock guys either; there IS
a level to symphonic musicians! On the other hand, he could have hired a
guitar, bass, and drummer and made money.

> I think the study included all of popular music, not just rock--which
makes 
> it even scarier for the establishment.

My understanding is that Dance/Urban is the number one seller in new
stores, and it's number 100 in here. So my thinking is: people are getting
their Rock from used stores, because it doesn't HAVE to be brand new, while
they get the D/U from the Mall because it's boring after a few months.

> Hard to get out of his contract.  Expensive legal hassle, and etc.

I feel quite sure his original contract with WB wasn't for this many
albums. This isn't something that happened overnight.

> Huh?

I don't understand what you don't understand (and no, that's not one of my
"stupid lyrics."). As a business owner who wants to stay in business in
case CDs go the way of the dodo, I've started carrying DVD movies...and,
like music, DVD movies are an interest of mine. Therefore I can "feed my
habit" and make money doing it. Free music, free movies. Now, if I could
just sell drugs...just kidding, folks...

> That's not unusual.  Lots of people have broad taste.

It's unusual in that the two are very far apart, although there are some
artists which cross over.

> Yeah, and they clutter up the air waves and the cd shelves until you
can't 

Something that sells like mad one week can sit around the next.
Fortunately, the South is behind the times and therefore I have a little
longer to sell them...when someone from the "hinderlands" of South Carolina
comes in..."Wow, you've got Matchbox 20!!!"

> they're likely to be crowded out by next month's trend--one cd is all you

> get.  It's hard for artists to build up any kind of following this way.

Like I said before, the artists themselves wait too long between albums and
lose their audience. The Who suffered from one album a year, even back in
the `60s, while their peers were pumping out at least two plus singles. For
instance, by early 1965 The Kinks had released four albums' worth of
material. You couldn't say that about The Who until 1968. By THEN The Kinks
(who were unable to tour in the US and thereby had a much smaller audience)
had released ANOTHER four albums worth! And recorded at least two more
which wasn't released until much later.

> If it's going to be a special order, might as well get it over the
internet 

Agreed.

> Wish we had one locally.

If there's a college, there should be. Course I have no idea where you
live.


                         Cheers                                         ML


Stupid lyrics for the masses:
"I am a kite flying/On the winds of May/I'm gonna tell the world/Why I feel
this way..."
                                                                           
                                White Heart