[Powderworks] Oils on World Cafe
fish_oil@space.com
fish_oil@space.com
Wed, 01 May 2002 20:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
Just going through some older mail and hoping to tidy up a few loose threads...
On Mon, 29 April 2002, Kelly Morris wrote
~snip!
> That is unfortunate because the band's musical
> talent merits equal attention.
You bet. They are an awesome force musically. Their
music isn't overly complicated, but it's unbelievably
difficult to play well, at least the guitar parts. Talk
about perfecting the art of understatement on guitar. A
good thing, too, I guess, given PG's over-the-top
vocals and presence.
> It is sad that they are not recognized as much for
> their music as for the issues they sing about.
True again. And those that take the time to listen hear
it. But I have to say I have a good friend who is also
a brilliant player, and he won't come see the Oils with
me because he can't stand PG's voice. (Bad taste, I
say.) I LIKE his singing, but by comparison, I LOVE the
guitar work of JM and MR. PG's voice reminds me quite a
bit of Mick Jagger's at times. His presence and passion
make his vocals powerful. If power and passion don't
move you, though, you might find it heinous and
unbearable. (my humble 2 cents.) In combination, these
5 fellas take on a musical power that I doubt any one
of them with 4 different and even more talented
musicians could reach; you know, the whole is FAR more
than just the sum of its parts. That's why it's hard to
imagine the Oils if there was an ongoing change of
personel like in some other bands. Remember a thread
about that a while ago?
> Anyway, sorry that I came across as so defensive. I
> admire Peter Garrett very much, and it's obvious that
> you do too. I hope I explained how his comments can
> be interpreted in a positive way.
I'm the one who should be apologizing. I probably came
across like a flaming A.H. (begging yer pardon), and as
I recall now it was more somebody else using your words
to grind THEIR own axe as opposed to what you actually
meant that set me off. Sorry. And thanks for putting
PG's comments into a very positive context.
~ have another snip! or two ~
On Mon, 29 April 2002, Kate Adams wrote
<br>
<html>
I get the feeling that the reason PG and Hirst tend to flog the art side
of things is because they see themselves as artists and their work as an
expression of themselves transmitted through their media.
For sure. Reminds me the line from 'River Runs Red' about the light on the hill. Which I took as a reference to 'nobody lights a torch then puts it under a basket. It's placed on a hill for all to see.' Having lit up, everybody gets a look. And a bright light attracts a lot of bugs... I think I'm proof of that.
They don't scheme to make politcal statements with great forethought because they don't have to!
As in it's always present. And, like it or not, the media/world has constructed this image of PG and the Oils, and we all respond to that on some level. Afer all, besides a few lucky blokes, none of us really know these guys. And those that do are a fairly tight lipped bunch. For good reason, I'd allow.
Hirst's probable position in a drum-free alternate universe
would be as some form of professor of Aussie history or political science
is rather abundantly clear.
That's beautiful. Can I quote you without fear of reprisal? Maybe stencil that line about Professor Hirst onto a few first-class-chunky-t-shirts, sell enough to make a packet, then buy a south Pacific island and become a bigamist. I'd be sure to send a royalty cheque to the appropriate parties (you and the good Doctor Hirst) and of course as quiet money to any offended Powder workers...
It is getting late. mmmmm ...Capricornia, a bicycle and (finally) a night that may actually be the start of spring ... should be a good ride.
cheers,
bruce
<pre>
<pre>___________________________________________________________________
Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.</pre></pre>