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

RE: Quad vs. Lifehouse and are they really painted clowns?



> > In order to understand Lifehouse, I do think folks have to make a
> > distinction between the sixties Lifehouse, the seventies Lifehouse and 
>Lifehouse 2000.  The ideas and philosophies differ enough to make them 
>separate works, and the concept really DOES get confusing when you try to 
>squash all three together.  Pete has gotten more cynical and disillusioned 
>as he's gotten older, and even if the plotlines remain similar, the 
>philosophies don't match up well at all.  It's like the continuing saga of 
>Lifehouse in three volumes.
> >
>	[O'Neal, Kevin W.]  Keets, I'd love to hear more.  Please elaborate on the 
>3 different philosophies, if you have the time.

Um, okay.

I would like to say I read for ideas rather than plotlines.  The vagueness 
in Pete's plots might concern a lot of people, but as long as the medium 
he's using supports the ideas well, I don't think the plot is all that 
important.  When you get into movies and visual type plays, it would be more 
important to pin down the details.  The folks who produced QUAD (the movie) 
did a terrific job of translating from rock opera to film, but I don't think 
Ken Russell did well for TOMMY (the movie).  The TOMMY film is messy and 
sort of ugly without really clarifying the story.

The sixties Lifehouse seems very idealistic to me.  There are some nasty 
elements, like the polluted environment and the mind-numbing grid.  Still, 
the general theme of the whole thing is hopeful and positive, like the 
characters can really find a way out of their wasteland and rise to a higher 
plane of existence through music.  The plot is fairly sketchy, but strong 
enough to carry the ideas.  There's a physical journey and a search for Mary 
that stands for the spiritual search, and a discovery of an environment 
that's cleaner than what the grid folk think is out there.  The characters 
find each other through music and break the bonds of the grid with the one 
note in a grand concert at the end.  From all indications, they end up with 
something better.

The seventies Lifehouse (WAY) is pretty much a stealth piece, unannounced 
and hard to pin down to any particular plotline (though rumor has it Pete 
wrote a script).  From what Pete has said, this album was Roger's idea and 
the closest he and Roger have come to a collaboration.  Basically it shifted 
the empahsis to the grid and connected it to the endless, soul-destroying 
reincarnation that compelled Buddha's search for Nirvana.  The songs are all 
about the need for change and to reliving things over and over.  (I also 
think "One Life's Enough for Me" from IT'S HARD belongs with this LH because 
of it's theme and style.)  The material on the WAY album seems to be about 
Pete's disillusionment, his realization that music really can't change the 
world and that he is stuck in the endless grind of touring.  The musical 
style is painful and stark compared to the lush style of WHO'S NEXT, and the 
album ends with "Who Are You," an indication that Pete has lost contact with 
his earlier self.

So then we get to Lifehouse 2000.  We're back to the original concept and 
plotline here, but with some radical changes.  We still have the journey and 
the search for Mary, but instead of finding good things out there, our hero 
gets further and further lost in a gray and desolate world.  His alter ego 
(Hacker) is a radical who arranges the one-note concert, only to 
(apparently) have it end badly this time.  The "one note" is an explosion 
that leaves the site in ruins and our hero all alone.  Hmmm.  Did those 
folks rise to a higher plane, or were they sabotaged (and killed) by 
Hacker's enemies?  Pretty cynical and scary there.  It's about life (and 
Lifehouse) blowing up in your face.

keets
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com