Shelter

Members
  • Content count

    1,287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Shelter

  • Rank
    "What's in here?"

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

About

  • Live Shows
  1. Late but.. Happy birthday, Grass!
  2. Ah yes!! Or Lawyers Guns n Money.
  3. a thread for words that you think are good, werid, funny, worthy, current or just needs to be said let's start with chutzpah oh.. crap.. it doesn't have to be such big words.
  4. On a related note - I recently found this piece, published to coincide with the release of Zane's book. As far as I'm concerned, this article is about as good a read as is the book, several nice pictures and videos in there too. Not sure if people here have seen it, or if it's been posted before, but here it is, enjoy! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3313819/Tom-Petty-went-hillbilly-rock-icon-fiery-relationship-Stevie-Nicks-heroin-addict-haunted-father-beat-living-s-him.html
  5. Agreed, he is pretty good at that.
  6. Sad as it is, it's also very interesting, and, I bet, a very accurate description. Depressing, really. Not to mention a devastating blow to the music and the integrity. Turns out I could not voice that better. Thank you! Very well put!
  7. What's wrong with people. Yet. Key to a sick world is fear.
  8. Thank you for posting this! Wonderful stuff! Always felt George was such a humble, and genuine person, no pose about him ever. For a man with his history to be so simple and.. pure.. I suppose you could say, is indeed a rare thing! A great, great man! (And my fav Beatle too, btw!)
  9. Well, yes. For reading pleasure, I am definitely more into the traditional bio concept as well. (We'll see about that other thread, right!) Albeit mentioned pitfalls. But like I said, for one thing I'm doubtful that TP would lend himself to such - auto- or otherwise. And for another, to me Zollo and Zane are both largely somewhere else, both in terms of shape and scope. To me something is still missing in the legacy folder here - it's not quite deep, insightful and constructed enough (for lack of better word), neither is it suficiently free of drewl. Another book is needed. I was merely expanding my thoughts into that territory, incl certain risks and aspects. Like I said, of the two, I much prefer Zollo, but that he has got the songs "covered" is debatable. He got certain spots tickled, sure, and he does it with impressive simplicity too. As for touring and session info, I agree that such would be less of a reading matter in itself. Rather something that would be of use and fascination - at least to me - as reference material, in an imaginable extensive appendix section or something. Since it's basically a matter of lists, session chronogly, titles, dates, engineers and such, it's definately advanced and over the top for any average book. Agreed. As for the live aspect, I definately agree that such would be of debatable interest at this point. I'd have a hard time to think of anything interesting to say, really, about the last five or six tours. Anything, cept perhaps the setlists from the recidencies, would indeed "be either depressing or downright boring". Still, the early formative years would be of certain interest, I think. Again, an apporoach of at least just listing the tours and live dates, perhaps offering shorter write ups on the general tour concepts and trails, notable moments, some set lists or specific memories and thoughts from the band, is all imaginable, and would perhaps make for great appendix /bonus stuff as well. I still wanted to mention it, as the type of information that, even if it's not common goods in rock bios everywhere, there are examples of really interesting fact pile-ups, for example by above mentioned Heylin (on Dylan). The Beatles even have had whole books compiled, about their recording sessions only! (And how many albums did they make?! I'm not saying those were not just any albums, mind you, but still..) Such type of information is gold for the hard core and/or collector fan and it also shed light on the main story as well. Then again, special episodes of special information or entertainment value, relating to these things, tours as well as recording sessions, are things that can also effectively be worked into a main text, even if the detailed or technical information in itself are being left out. Speaking of Heylin. I urge anyone with the slightest interest in the Bob Dylan discography and music (seriously, how could anyone be overly interested in the person Bob Dylan, who is he anyway? does anyone really know? was "his" story ever better told than in the film I'm Not There?) to take a look at Clinton Heylin's "Behind The Shades" book (another title that says a lot, that). Preferably one of the later editions - if you are strong enough to lift it from the shelf. The "story" itself, carries many of those pitfalls mentioned above, of subjectively tweeked selections and angles, that are always there, even if Heylin, at least, is not afraid of being critical at times. But his aim when it comes to technical information on the recording sessions and discography aspect is admireble and something more rock bio writer would benefit from doing, imo. Then again, not all artists are Bob Dylan. (Or the Beatles). On the other hand, a few hundreds less of sessions to dig through, a few thousand less self proclaimed expert critics to fight off, would make the work all the more attractive, no? In short, TP cannot be as infected or vastly complicated a story to tell, but perhaps that means it's not marketable enough either. Who knows? At this point, part of me is always curious to learn more about this story and the key players, but the bigger part of me would perhaps enjoy to have the appendix only, from a book like the one I've been imagining. As always, these things are not black or white, but it can be useful to point out a general direction or approach worth pondering. PS. (Really. It's a PS! Don't read it!) Of course it's easy to write and to sell a book like "White Line Fever". A story like that, a person like that. 121% controversy, nerve, passion and attitude. A wild ride. Entertainment, presented by a tough son of a bitch (who just won't back down, just to play crowds prerecorded skits about how he won't, as it were.) Although Lemmy was a charicature of/in himself, as much as anyone, at least he was loud, thought provoking and honest at that. None of this mean you are able or qualified to write a book as well and elegantly (ehr..) as Lemmy. But it's all a flying start that would make many rock stars envious. Perhaps - and here's a theory worth thinking about - perhaps TP's big problem, when it comes to be great book material, is simply that he is too nice, that there are too few edges left too him at this point. Perhaps there's a pattern to the "humbled perfectionist" here. Just like he's not willing to change things around in his live set, because he don't want to upset anyone, just like he doesn't want to have too much of an opinion on most things, or too much of anything bad to say about anyone (bless him!), nothing too specifc to say in general, that isn't gonna go well in line with his image or being just straigh up ingratiating. Perhaps the eagerness to be so precisely nice and cool has made him increasingly vague? Perhaps "personality" is vanishing - into an admittedly more flat type of charicature? Perhaps the desire to come across as authentic has come in the way of said authenticity, and let's face it - without a fair amount of edges to your story, it's hard to get a grip on someone, let alone write interesting books about them. Perhaps in order to please everyone, in the end the only people you fail to please, are the ones that actually cares for REAL about your work or your unfiltered self. Ironic. Or perhaps TP is just too private in character, and don't want books that deals more in detail with his life or his work. If so, that at least is admireble and a proof of life, as it were, in terms of integrity. DS
  10. ^ (Jeeze. One would be excused for thinking I was drunk, when I wrote that, as well! I wasn't. All the bad spelling and typos are due to me trying to get the message across in a hurried stream of thought fashion. With my rather anacronistic handeling of the cellphone, this clearly did not work overly well, did it. Some really bad writing. Hope you see what I'm aiming for nevertheless. Sorry!)
  11. "I hope you paid your babysitters handsomely, because this is gonna be a long read!" Or something like that. Yeah, it's mostly Zollo for me. Flawed as his book may be, not to mention it's getting old, I still prefer that set up. No need to deny the fact that any type of attempt at the "deeply personal" is gonna be frippery anyway, one way or the other. It's always gonna be a hindsight type of mess, professionally angled to sharpen certain aspects of an artist's image or hype, sell a certain product, create certain drama or contrast certain things, stirr up enough headlines of controversy, and, willingly or by accident, putting a lid on yet other things. The more such here books are guided, filtered and edited by a third party (editor/author) this seem to become the case. At least it seems to get more in the way of me enjoying reading it. Don't get me wrong. A certain entertainment value has to be credited to certain rock bios - most notably of which may be the genre's masterpiece "White Line Fever" by Lemmy Kilmister, the somewhat more sombre "Chronicles" by Dylan (hey Bob - where's Vol 2 at???), for talking about a lot of other things than music, even if that is part of the point - the person/stories behind the music DOES inform the music, right, but it then has to be almost as well conceived and effecticely presented as the music itself, which most rock related bios fall way short of. Another classic one that comes to mind is Nick Tosches "Hellfire" on Jerry Lee Lewis. But, for one thing, most effective books has a first person form to them, I think (the Tosches one does not apply here) and a certain type of stories too (here Tosches apply plenty!) and most imporantly it has to be honest (keeping the bs to a minimum or at least disguising it well), to make that certain something fully happen. In terms of TP, interesting as it would be to see him write his own biography in that sense (or have it written in a more complete and traditional - and frankly better - way, than Zanes managed), I'm not sure if he would have any inteterest in it, if he would prioritize such a thing or have the patience to sit down and talk it all through with a ghostwriter, or to write it down himself. Then we have the problem with what an interesting and sometimes substance fueled and/or bumpy ride back then, does to the hazy mind of today. In short, I'm not sure he would even have his memory straight on certain things. (But then again - did I just say Lemmy?!?). Either way, I don't think such a book would or could ever happen in the TP context, and for the lack of such, I suppose the books we've had, do an ok job on certain aspects of the whole TP&TH ride. There are bits and pieces to both, but neither qualifies as a grade A+ biographical book on TP, imo. And, even if A LOT more could also be done, as far as merely musical aspects go (that is, songwriting, recording, sessions, dynamics, inspirations, creative process, band memebers input, drumming, harmonies, memories, details, and so on - and here kudos is due for Zanes for bringing Stan in), I, for reasons just explained above, actually prefer the extent to which Zollo keeps it about the music. At least his aim is great. But, like MJ2LD points out, noticably a lot of what would/could be of key interest to most (at least many) core fans, are not really covered much, and that is both an issue of focus and depth - too little is done in too few areas, so to speak - but I suppose that is critisism coming from nutty fans only, and pleasing us (or annoying us) - the way Clinton Heylin, Greil Marcus and others done to Dylan's fans - is not gonna happen in the TP universe. Ever. The market of Pettyologists is not merely big enough, the story itself not carrying enough semi-religious dimensions, for that matter (even if some fans seem to prefer a TP show to be a mass of sorts.) In short, I would buy a book that TP wrote himself (or at least told to a ghostwriter) even if I would be very wary of certain things he may say (in a way I probably would not have been some 15 years ago), I would be spongeing anything he would like to share in terms of his music and recordings (beyond how songs just comes to him, how he just ad lip:ed this and improvised that - I already know that he is genius in some ways and don't need to have all that same old easy going standard routine crap put on repeat, just saying). Most of all, I would love more books that goes more in detail into the process of his/their music making and playing, their sessions, and even touring (at least for the first half of their career, such a book section would be fantastic!) but I don't have high hopes to ever see neither one nor the other. And in the market of "sad excuses" as it were, I definitely prefer Zollo. And I could perhaps, at least, suggest a title for a yet to be published book that tells all: Gone Gators - Rollin' Cause We Had To Roll.
  12. ^ Slightly drunk when I wrote that. No. Really. Point is, though - in terms of those "thing or 2" the artist can be taught by an audience - that it's simply and only a matter of what type of artist you want to be. There is no other universal truth to be had here - Do you want to be an artist or a traveling salesman? The answer will shape the crowd for you. Period. This is always the case. And I can't even begin to tell you how much this is the case when an artist is already the some 27 years into an extremely succesful career, the way TP was in 2002. Thus, the point to be made, could rather be, I suppose, that by 2002, it was possibly already way passed the time, way too late for TP to try to change the formula. Withtout short term effect, that is! And that is exactly where I come in, in terms of how this is to be understood. In 2002 TP was already waist deep in whatever trail he is now more or less stuck. (It could be argued that what he decided to do about his Jeff Lynne success in a live context really did him in.) Of course, I admit and believe that he could still have made decisions on what to do about that in 2002. In a sense, it is never too late, just that the cost is gradually gonna be higher and higher, the more you are associated with one specific product. And TP was not willing to pay any short or longterm price needed to save any artistic live legacy in 2002, apparently, was not ready to change tracks in terms of what artist he wanted to be. He kept on the product side, went for hand crafted perfection only, rather than incoporating the artistic ditto that his vast cataloge screams for. He sure seemed keen on having us believed that he could still be saved, by trying to push a few contemorary/new songs unto each tour - most notably he did a real brave attempt with the Mojo tour - but it could be argued (actually nothing else could be argued), that for the most part 1) way too few new songs post WF have even been played live, let alone made it to the steady set and 2) the fixated core is too big, unshapely and too un-rotated to make any further attempt of TP's to switch into "true performing artist" mode realistic.* And by now price, may be too high. Not until he gets too old to play this charade he chose for himself anymore, or until the vast crowds lose interest in it, will he be able to shake the weight of it, in favor for a more artistically oriented approach. Needless to say, if we will ever get to see that, if there is such a wonderful thing to be had, it will be small scale by design.** --- *It should be noted, that by 2002 TP had still to a major extent been touring on the back of his most recent albums, that is sure he had hits, but he was out to play some of the newer stuff as much as he was out to play the core - a core that was then very young and less tired and worn compared to today, shall I add. In the light of that, and in the light of what type of album The Last DJ was, it's very difficult to understand any disbelief voiced in 2002. For zombies to be disappointed is one thing, but, it's not exactly an upheaval. Rather it could be viewed as the first and last radical attempt to go elsewhere, if a rather a whimp in terms of following true. What followed since may ideed be seen as if he "learned" a lesson in 2002, whereas I just see a man underestimating the strength and possibilites in what he was doing, not being commited enough to change things and thus taking the safe way out, or back, as it were. Perhaps one could argue that the small valve he kept open after that, to vent any urge to go in an artistic direction, was the occasional rare booking of a recidency overflowing with actual and real precense. **I would argue that TP would have an at least as good, if not indeed "better" (from a music point of view) live following, had he gone down different paths with his live shows after Dogs With Wings. That goes to say, that I personally don't think he would have had to choose mellow or small scale or "sophisticated" venues with a more mixed up, dynamic and exploring apporach to live sets. He could still have been a big arena rocker to this day. Sure, the crowds would have looked slightly different, and he may have been known among fans and critics as a slightly different act than he is today, but that is all in the expectaitons department, not in the hurtful, or impossible to sell appartment, I am truly convinced. If anyhting, to have commercial flair AND artistic integrity can't be bad, right? After all, like I've said so many times, you don't have to go all in weird just cause you rotate a handful of songs in your set from time to time. --- At the end of the day, that audience could need to learn a thing or 2 about rock'n'roll!!
  13. Me too!
  14. ^ Too bad so many great artists have yet to learn this great universal truth... Or to put it slightly less... well... Ever thought how this may say more about the audience of this band than anything else... and why that may be?? There will always be excuses for being lame, and only the future to pass judgement on genius. Besides, again.. many apperently ill informed artists prosper, against all odds, in contemporary terms too.. How could they? Could it be the different between being an artist and being a overly well defined product? (Both has "fans" by the way; I would not want my schampoo to "play another song" with the next bottle And that's the type of familiarity logic we are told to follow in artistic terms as well?) And if so, what does that tell you? Rhetorically and respectfully speaking.