Level 42 Digest for Wednesday, March 26, 2003

AG said:

I can't recall anyone echoing my own feelings on the subject. Namely, that
the material is more important than the line-up. I'm more than happy to see
this band, for all its blemishes, perform the sort of set list they did a
couple of years back; at the same time, I wouldn't go out of my way to see
the original four perform the tour just ended.

Hmm, gotta say I agree with AG for once on some of this…J

As Don Z said, I don’t see the original lineup having major success, if they

Reformed, UNLESS the totally embraced the new pop stuff happening today.

And I truly think that had the Goulds stayed in the band, they would have

Just as much chance of laying a dud album, that MK, ML, and others did

With SATS. (which I don’t find that bad personally) It was just different

Than the totally pop Wm & RITF albums.

AG goes on to say:

He's bang on you know. King may have been the defining sound of Level 42,
but he wasn't the defining creative spark. There's quite a body of evidence
to suggest that Phil Gould filled that role, and Wally Badarou to a slightly
lesser extent.

Ok, please give me some of this ‘body of evidence’? I didn’t come into this

Band because of Mark King’s bass playing..as this style was VERY common

In the USA. You could turn on the radio and hear ANY soul or r&b band

Playing that style of bass. It was the songs that turned me onto the band.

So I’m not a super fan of mark king, when I say that I think he WAS the

Defining creative spark.

I know if takes all 4 members to get that sound, etc, etc. But we are NEVER

Gonna really know how these songs came together, who contributed what,

And what the changes were. But if we just look at the song credits, its easy

To see that Mark King is listed as composer quite a bit more than any other

Band member. He had his hand in more songs than any of the other members,

And by a LARGE margin I might add. He is listed as main writer quite more

Than any other.

So I find it funny that Loz would state that without the Goulds, Mark would not

Have had any success. Well, we will never know will we? Its kinda silly to

Assume any of this stuff.

I my opinion I think Mark’s weak area might be in the lyric writing, as he

Always had the Goulds, and he continues to work with Boon. But musically

I do think he was the catalyst for this band.

But just my opinion..i’d love to hear how some of these tunes came together,

Who brought what ideas, etc.

Win

1 - Glasgow Tour
From:	Ricky Mullen <RMullen @ motherwell.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:13:56 +0000	[top]
The Glasgow Royal Concert Hall is selling tickets, I got two yesterday (front row, centre stage) - their number is 0141 353 8000. Can't wait! Cheers Ricky Glasgow 1 - "Level 42" - 2003 Tour Dates [Ticketline] From: Eric J. Hansen < ehansen @ worldmachine.com> 28 Oct Glasgow Royal Concert Hall ******************************************************************** E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail (including any attachments to it) contains information which is confidential. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please let us know by replying to the sender, and immediately delete it from your system. Please note, that in these circumstances, the use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. We apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused to you. Motherwell College cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. ********************************************************************

2 - nearly milked this thread now
From:	Laurence Green <laurence.green @ scottwilson.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:53:26 -0000	[top]
>He's bang on you know. King may have been the defining sound of Level 42, >but he wasn't the defining creative spark. There's quite a body of evidence >to suggest that Phil Gould filled that role, and Wally Badarou to a slightly >lesser extent. Well hoo-bloody-rah, at last eyes are beginning to open. Mark was mainly responsible for the commercial success, Phil for the damn good music. When we're undoubtedly enjoying the superb music at the up and coming concerts, spare a thought for Phil (and Boon & Mark). Millions can play instruments well, but the material being played, which attracted us all, was written by 4 / 5 very clever guys. >BUT I'm going coz I love the old music - you can't beat it live - the atmosphere the 'crap' support band etc And that's why I'll go (to one). I don't accept that ANYONE playing the music of a band that just happens to be defunct can be more relevant to its fans than the band itself. Especially when they're just playing the same songs year in, year out. >I suppose it would bother me to read members of a Digest Site having a go at their favourite band, but I've >>grown to not let that bother me so much these days What I find funny is that on September the 2nd 2001 if you'd have said Grupo Mark King was rubbish, then on this forum you could not be accused of 'having a go' at the band we were here to support. On 3rd September 2001 if you'd 'had a go' a grupo at Grupo Mark King you COULD be accused of slagging off Level 42??? However, just because Mark changed the name of his group, who's to say also that the 2000 strong Level 42 web community also jumped ship overnight? So on the 2nd we're all here, talking, making digest projects etc, quite viably about a group we loved. The day after we're following a new group, just because of a financial transaction? Nope. My main focus remains what we were here for before that transaction took place. My level of interest in Mark's group also remains the same, in fact - it lessens, because since then the set-list doesn't interest me as much. I can't thinking that in term of an academic debate about Level 42 - a contrived line-up playing the same hits year after year is worth a small appendix in the great history of the group. That said - yes, these guys play well and it's fun to see them. >Look, Mark has every right to play Level 42 songs, as he co-wrote them. And, as the other members sold >>their shares in the company, he has every right to use the name I fully agree, that doesn't change the reason I joined the digest (to discuss the Level 42 I enjoy) nor do I suddenly become 'living in the past', overnight due to Mark buying a name. What wrong with Mark using the name - nothing At least he's out there, playing - he was before he started using the name L()Z Visit our web site at www.scottwilson.com Privilege and Confidentiality Notice. This e-mail and any attachments to it are intended only for the party to whom they are addressed. They may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete any digital copies and destroy any paper copies. Thank you. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co Ltd Registered in London: No. 880328 Registered office: Scott House, Basing View, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 4JG. UK. _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

3 - change in line-up success
From:	Arjan Meijer <arjan @ arjan-m.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:37:58 +0100	[top]
In reaction on AG's "quiz", I find it hard to come up with successful line-up changes. The obvious is of coarse Genesis (with Phil Collins replacing Peter Gabriel as lead singer). I hadn't thought of the Doobies myself, but I agree that a certain Mr. MacDonald really added something to the band and made them more successful. All other options that come to mind show that a change in line-up (espacially when it's the "front- line", e.g. important and visible members) is rarely successful. Van Halen (Lee Roth vs Hagar), Powerstation (Robert Palmer vs Michael des Barres), The Jacksons, Genesis (Phil Collins vs. Ray Wilson), Guns 'n' Roses (I believe Slash left the band at a certain moment) and so on... And of course Michael Jackson wasn;t really successful after his own line- up changes... ;-) I'm very interested in the other replies... Bye, Arjan

4 - oldnewyoungold
From:	Winston Walker <winman42 @ comcast.net>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:25:24 -0500	[top]
st1\:{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } / Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} AG said: I can't recall anyone echoing my own feelings on the subject. Namely, that the material is more important than the line-up. I'm more than happy to see this band, for all its blemishes, perform the sort of set list they did a couple of years back; at the same time, I wouldn't go out of my way to see the original four perform the tour just ended. Hmm, gotta say I agree with AG for once on some of this…J As Don Z said, I don’t see the original lineup having major success, if they Reformed, UNLESS the totally embraced the new pop stuff happening today. And I truly think that had the Goulds stayed in the band, they would have Just as much chance of laying a dud album, that MK, ML, and others did With SATS. (which I don’t find that bad personally) It was just different Than the totally pop Wm & RITF albums. AG goes on to say: He's bang on you know. King may have been the defining sound of Level 42, but he wasn't the defining creative spark. There's quite a body of evidence to suggest that Phil Gould filled that role, and Wally Badarou to a slightly lesser extent. Ok, please give me some of this ‘body of evidence’? I didn’t come into this Band because of Mark King’s bass playing..as this style was VERY common In the USA. You could turn on the radio and hear ANY soul or r&b band Playing that style of bass. It was the songs that turned me onto the band. So I’m not a super fan of mark king, when I say that I think he WAS the Defining creative spark. I know if takes all 4 members to get that sound, etc, etc. But we are NEVER Gonna really know how these songs came together, who contributed what, And what the changes were. But if we just look at the song credits, its easy To see that Mark King is listed as composer quite a bit more than any other Band member. He had his hand in more songs than any of the other members, And by a LARGE margin I might add. He is listed as main writer quite more Than any other. So I find it funny that Loz would state that without the Goulds, Mark would not Have had any success. Well, we will never know will we? Its kinda silly to Assume any of this stuff. I my opinion I think Mark’s weak area might be in the lyric writing, as he Always had the Goulds, and he continues to work with Boon. But musically I do think he was the catalyst for this band. But just my opinion..i’d love to hear how some of these tunes came together, Who brought what ideas, etc. Win

5 - Tourdates/gigs
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Maria=20Gechou?= <melodycool2001 @ yahoo.de>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:13:19 +0100 (CET)	[top]
Hey, I�m jealous!!!!! So many UK gigs......and what�s with GERMANY? Mark, if you read this....you promised to come to Germany this year. I will come ! So pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaasseee don�t let me wait too long. Miss ya...:-))) Maria PS.See you in NL ?! Gesendet von http://mail.yahoo.de. 250 Visitenkarten GRATIS! Erstellen Sie Ihre eigenen vollfarbigen Profi-Visitenkarten einfach Online. Nur bei www.vistaprint.de.

6 - The Music is NOT enough
From:	Dan Nesselroth <dnesselroth @ hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:07:13 -0800	[top]
Many are grateful that there is a minimal semblance of what Level 42 was, out there playing Level 42 songs. Mark King was the upfront man, and a notable talent with the bass, but the writing was done by King, Lindup, Gould and Gould...with Husband in the later years once or twice and Badarou. You could feel the drain on the band by the Staring At The Sun period. Simply PLAYING the tunes is not enough for this fan. Sure, listening to mark is astounding, but I would rather listen under the banner of a Mark King tour. Instead, I will be listening to Mark and a group of SESSION musicians playing the parts of the real talents that were phil and boon and mike. Some DUDE playing Boons Solos, Husband brutally banging the finesse out of Phil's parts, and some OTHER DUDE crushing his balls between his legs to get Mikes backing vocals out. Remember the Beach Boys? You can go to a Beach Boys concert today and not see any of the actual BEACH BOYS, the lineup has changed so much. YES, Mark Obtained the rights to Level 42...but don't think for a minute that Phil, Boon, and Mike are not going to be getting a percentage. You will still be giving them your money, but they will not be providing a service. "Level 42" is now like a corporation that promises you a car and sends you a moped. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

7 - the general scratches his belly and thinks...
From:	Eric J. Hansen <ehansen @ worldmachine.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:10:10 -0500	[top]
AG mused: > who would people nominate as the bands to have gained or lost most > creatively or commercially from a change in line-up? Great topic... just a few random comments about bands that I happen to like: Yes - I've lost track of the lineup changes over the years, but this is a band where all of the original members went on to have very successful solo endeavors. They reunited for an album and touring as Anderson Bruford Wakeman & Howe, which I think they probably had to do because there was still an active variation of the band "Yes" at the time! There will be others on this Digest with far greater knowledge about Yes, but my opinion is that they definitely had substantial commercially success long after the original lineup had changed (i.e., 90125, Big Generator, etc. in the late 80's.) The driving force here was Jon Anderson, but I suppose you could also consider this band an series of overlapping supergroups, since there have been so many truly superlative musicians in Yes over the years. Tears For Fears - Roland Orzabal and Kurt Smith split up, and Roland kept the band's name. Granted, there were only two main band members, but by dumping Smith, my opinion is that the band's creativity (Roland) was allowed to develop far more successfully. They have had some moderate commercial success since the mid 90's. Ultravox - originally, Midge Ure wasn't in the band, and they totally sucked... After Midge joined, they had a string of well-known hits and commercial success. Someone else (in this Digest issue) mentioned Van Halen aka Van Hagar... I do think they've been pretty successful after Roth left, although probably not _as_ successful as they had been. Arguably, Sammy Hagar was exactly the right guy for the job at the exact right time that they needed him. Creatively, I think they were probably better with Roth (saw the video for "Hot For Teacher" the other day - got my pencil... gimme something to write on!) I'm also trying to think if Steely Dan fits into this discussion at all... probably not, since they are by definition two guys with a constantly changing studio band. Hypothetically, though, what would the Dan be like with only Fagan? Probably like Fagan's solo stuff, which is great (AG, comment?) With only Becker? Probably sucky, like Walter's solo album. Either way, Fagan and Becker have way to much sense (or they might say they don't have enough) to attempt an iteration of the Dan with only one of the two. Two other acts to consider on this topic: Alan Parsons Project, and Electric Light Orchestra (ELO). cheers, Eric

8 - Same old debate (cont.)
From:	DonZipf @ aol.com <DonZipf @ aol.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:41:58 EST	[top]
AG wrote: > the material is more important than the line-up. I'm more than happy to see > this band, for all its blemishes, perform the sort of set list they did a > couple of years back; at the same time, I wouldn't go out of my way to see > the original four perform the tour just ended. Agreed! This debate seems more about worship of certain personalities than about enjoyment of the music. The 2001 tour was heaven on earth, because the songs were well-chosen (by us, coincindentally), and the line-up of musicians acquitted themselves splendidly in the performance of them. But the "Greatest Hits" tour was the first I've missed since Mark came out of retirement. The setlist and the lack of intimate venues just didn't interest me enough to make the effort. > King may have been the defining sound of Level 42, but he wasn't the defining > creative spark. There's quite a body of evidence to suggest that Phil Gould filled > that role, and Wally Badarou to a slightly lesser extent. Why a lesser extent? Isn't Wally really the one responsible for Level 42's keyboard sound, even though Mike usually gets handed the credit by fans? > I was listening to a bit of Doobie Brothers earlier. Now there's a band > which benefitted HUGELY from a change in lead singer, bringing with him > songwriting craft which had been distinctly lacking before his arrival. An interesting choice. While I certainly agree with you, there are many who would consider "them fightin' words". Especially in the southeastern US where I live, I've known many who hated the "new" Doobies, with the addition of ex-Steely Dan members McDonald and Baxter changing the band's direction. I like the old line-up too, but I'll take "Minute By Minute" over "China Grove" any day. The point is, just as with our debate over Level 42 line-ups, every band that undergoes a personnel change has both fans who are happy about it and fans who are pissed off. There's nothing wrong with having a preference, but you have to move on at some point and accept change. Z.

9 - replacements
From:	Tom Foolery <grooveyardtom @ yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:28:00 -0800 (PST)	[top]
maybe Annie McCaig can be the next Dixie Chick - how's her drawl? -TF __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com

10 - 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other and other phrases that should be retired
From:	jt <jtraci @ yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:05:57 -0800 (PST)	[top]
> Oh and by the way, has anyone noticed that the > number of members, signed up to this site, is > rapidly dropping? um, yeah, and has anyone noticed that Eric explained this some time ago? >Could it be that maybe, just > maybe, they are fed up listening to the same old > debates time after time. I�m not one to stand in > your way guy�s but let�s talk about something else > for Christ sake!! Maybe, although you cited it as "interesting", so you're loop-holing your thesis, and needless to say, not offering up anything that could produce a new subject to ponder over. >If the original line-up were to > reunite, I doubt seriously that they could produce > top-selling hits today, True, but I really don't think anyone here is hoping for a hit of any kind. Aside from MK. >No, it's not the same band, but it's > a case of seeing the glass as half-full or as > half-empty. oh my, pseudo-zen...haven't we yet moved into life-areas where greater multitudes exist? -What is the fluid in the glass? (eg. a group swimming in cirlces) -What is the glass constructed of? (some members that have a kinda difficult time in their roles, lead by someone going through the motions with the creative spark of a wet book of matches). No matter the level of the fluid, evaporation will eventually take place, you can not place this proverbial glass in a closed environment. >but I prefer to seek the > silver lining. oh gott, Don...that AND the glass thing all in one day...and the 'life/living' thing, twice even... This must certianly be your disillusionment taking over 100% ;P May you be visited by a grand ol' Greek named Zorba... > I can't recall anyone echoing my own feelings on the > subject. Namely, that > the material is more important than the line-up. AG, well, that is part of what I was dealing with, albeit it in a diluted way, since whenever any critque of instrument-holders makes the the masses wield their little knitting needles. I've harped on about the tired set lists, lack of creativity and such. And needless to say, in which the way they are pre-formed (as opposed to performed). But those with no arguement always just see this as 'living in the past'; which is beyond bloody lame. The material is what MK dictates, now under the backboneless banner of L42 or under Grouper MK or Marky Mark, etc. Sadly, knowing MK can milk all the "true fans", yearly concerts of sameol'-sameol' will pay the mortgage/alimony and such. If they are to do this, may I suggest that every tired-tour they just tour one album, it can be billed The Way-Back Machine tour, they can dress up in all the clothes from those albums. Coming this summer, The Early Tapes tour!! > That's what I find most > dispiriting about the current scenario, that as a > nakedly commercial venture > there is no room for an adventurous selection of > material. yup. >And if one > assumes that Level 42 in whatever form is unlikely > to trouble chart > compilers of the future, that list of > must-plays-to-fill-larger-venues is > never, ever going to change. well said, but I do think that this 'liquid' will most certainly 'evaporate', many people have, and will, grow(n) sick and tired of MK doing a few concerts every summer of the same ol' shit. > I see they're back at the Apollo November 19. Are > there really enough people > to fill it again this year without there being > something new on offer? Reports are that the Sherwood gig isn't selling so well, ands that has some other 'classic' bands on the roster... >who would people > nominate as the bands to have gained or lost most > creatively or commercially > from a change in line-up? Hmmmm, King Crimson, Wetton added an different vocal feel and Bruford is a rhythm god. Then the 80s incarnation changed 180degrees with Adrian Belew, Tony Levin and Bruford switching to electronic (for a time). Needless to say this doesn't fit under the "commercial" aspect, though. But some evolutions that are unmatched. For commercial appeal (over time), and great musical change with still a big respect, the stepping in of Neil Peart for Rush has to be a pick. And for the opposite, over time commerical suckses and lack of respect, the before-mentioned Genseis with the chap who insists on always putting his ugly mug on album covers... apologies is this is slightly (or alot) messy, a tidal wave of the dreaded Deadline is moving toward shore... j __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com

End of Level 42 Digest	Help support the Level 42 Digest:
Please note: you are viewing the web version of today's Level 42 Digest mailing. This content was distributed via email to subscribers at approximately -0500 GMT (6:00am EST/EDT) this morning. * To post a new message email level42@worldmachine.com. You must be a subscriber to post a message. Please also note that all MIME attachments will be automatically stripped from messages before posting on the Digest (this is to prevent computer viruses, huge Digest emails, etc.) Also, for the web version, email addresses are purposefully de-referenced and munged so that web spambots will not harvest your address. * To subscribe to the mailing list email level42@worldmachine.com with SUBSCRIBE as the subject. * To unsubscribe from the list email level42@worldmachine.com with UNSUBSCRIBE as the subject. * New! Level 42 Digest and ILF archive search engine. Related web sites: Level42.com, Forever Now, Mike Lindup, Boon Gould, Gary Husband, Jakko Jakszyk, Level 42 Web Digest Please note that by viewing or posting messages to the Level 42 Digest, you agree to be bound to the terms and policies located at the Terms Of Use web page.