vzeop7a8 <vzeop7a8 @ verizon.net> wrote:

 

>>I understand those of you who are used to seeing Mark and the boys and are tired of seeing the "same" show over and over.

Just remember there are those of us who have never seen the greatest band in any way shape or form. Please take pity. <<

 

 

Thought I'd chime in on this discussion and offer the POV of someone who's only seen the band once (opening for Steve Winwood at the Glens Falls Civic Center in 1986). I think the overall concern of Mark doing the same stuff over and over is a legitimate one. If he needed to do those first couple tours to get attention back on the band (Greatest Hits Tour, the Ultimate Tour, etc), that's fine. But I also recall reading somewhere that Mark said something to the effect of "Well, we're really going to have to do a new album and tour on that next year, because we've already done all the old stuff three years running" (please bear in mind that I'm paraphrasing here). Why bring the band back UNLESS there was a plan to eventually move things forward? Reestablishing yourself is all well and good, but unless you've got something new to offer you seriously run the risk of falling in with all those nostalgia bands that tour year in and year out and play the same 15 songs. At that point, you're really more of a musical performer than anything else.

 

So why hasn't this happened yet? I really couldn't tell you. But when recently listening to the GREATEST HITS LIVE CD and subsequently watching the LIVE AT READING DVD with my good friend Mark Perella (who makes an awesome baked macaroni & cheese!!), one thing became apparent. It seemed like the guitarist and keyboardist are playing at 10% above their actually ability just to try and keep up with Mark, and because of that Gary is playing below his ability to try and make the other two sound better. Far from what you'd call a tight live band. I remember a couple years back when Mark was touring for ONE MAN that there was a lot of criticism in the Digest about the keyboard player (Lyndon Connah). Initially I thought it was people being resistant to change, but now I think there was something to their complaints. And PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEMS WITH NEW BAND MEMBERS COMING ALONG AND JOINING THE FOLD WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DEPARTS. Not that it's the same kind of music, but I've made countless post in other music forums defending new releases (from the likes of Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, and Iron Maiden) from the stupid "But it's not the same without so and so in the band" comments. I'm completely fine with musical growth and change, and in one sense it has to happen. 12 different versions of  TRUE COLORS would not only get boring after a while, but it would also eventually take something away from the original. I know there's a marked difference between SITL and SATS, but I happen to like them both. In fact, I honestly can say that I like every studio album the band ever released. And you know what my favorite is? GUARANTEED- the one that a lot of people are not so fond of. But just because that happens to be my favorite release, that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the other albums at all. Quite the opposite in fact, because I have so many different things to choose from. As long as Mark & Mike were there, I knew I could count on a good release. 

 

So where's the problem with getting a new album out? Could be that Mark doesn't have the songwriting partners needed to inspire the creation of new material. I'm not saying that he has to work with the same people he has in the past, but he may not have all the right people around him now (and that's also not a slam towards Gary, because I think the man is extremely talented in his own right). One thing I've noticed mentioned on this board that also happens to echo the sentiments of both myself and my good friend in the North Country: both of Mike's solo efforts get high marks. Mark King's stuff- as much as I've tried and wanted to like it- leaves a feeling of indifference (also, not meant as a slam towards MK). Seeing as how he's a key member of Level 42, I would have expected his stuff to grab my attention the same way the band's music did (and continues to do). Maybe the answer is just to branch out and work with different songwriters and musicians that are able to work on the same level of musicianship he's at. The one thing I wouldn't want to see is the original four reuniting for a studio album only, and then a different lineup touring on the new material. Gary could certainly keep up, but as I mentioned in the beginning, the rest of the band might need to go through some changes to keep the band moving forward. Right now, all that's happening is an increasingly tiring circle through the past. Some fresh, new material- regardless of whether it sounds like the first studio album or the last- is ultimately what's needed.

 

 

Chris L.