Re: Rock is dead, I say

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

> >What, do you think it was contagious?
>I can't explain it any better. It's just like what Howard Stern said when 
>asked if he'd have sex with Robin Givens, former wife of Mike Tyson: "I 
>don't think I want to swim in that pool."

Yeah, I know what you mean.  My point was that women likely think that same 
thing when they look at men who hang around with questionable characters, 
but in the long run, personal qualities overcome it.  Linda and Paul were 
obviously pleased with the marriage.


> >says he has no interest in writing rock songs.  Listen to the music on 
>his solo albums after CHINESE EYES and you notice that it's not rock music.
>
>I don't know what you mean here. If English Boy, for instance, isn't
>Rock...I don't know what it is.

Don't have it right here.  I'll listen to it and tell you what I think.  ;) 
Mostly I hear a heavy jazz influence in Pete's music after the middle 
seventies.  It's where he's been headed with The Who, as well.  Back to his 
daddy's music. ;)


>My thinking on the band is the same as with other such bands: The Who 
>didn't need all the extra stuff to be entertaining, they just went on stage 
>and played and were considered the greatest live act in history. If a band 
>needs to spit blood or fire, then there must be something lacking with the 
>music.

I don't think Kiss fans would deny that, but they like the stage act.  Lots 
of successful acts are based on a stage show, and The Who has done really 
well to keep it as pure as they do.  You DO have to admit that Who fans keep 
hoping Pete will have some terminal accident with his guitar.


>OK. What innovations have come from the Blues in the last 60 years?

Blues is an improvisational form.  It's always new.


>And by the same token, what innovations have come from Rock since the 70's? 
>That's when the first recycle occurred (50's craze, particularly 
>Rockabilly). And combining Rock with something else doesn't count, because 
>it's not new ground.

Why not?  If it's not open to new influences, then how can anybody innovate? 
  Nothing's ever new, only a synthesis of things already present.


>It's not that I don't love Rock and Blues, and Reggae and Jazz and so on, 
>but that doesn't mean there's anything going on there but recycling.
>
> >The same thing goes for all the "they should retire" arguments.
>
>I never said they should retire, but I'd sure like to see some innovative 
>material from Townshend because I know he's still got it in him.

In rock music?  Does he get to combine it with anything else?

Actually the Roger/Pete collaboration might turn up something new.  That's 
something they've never done before.


>Madison Avenue machine has inculcated
> >within us all this idea that it has to be for "kids" only.
>
>But remember, even Pete Townshend bought into this thinking, and the reason 
>he was constantly in termoil (hopefully resolved now) is that he felt he 
>needed to bring it to an adult level but it cannot be done.

Not the youth anthem, of course, but I think there is/was plenty of mature, 
adult rodk music around the edges.  It's never quite a popular as the 
youth-oriented stuff, but it does have more staying power.


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