Re: A new album & more

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> I would absolutely LOVE to have a new Who studio album, and I think they
> should work on one even if they're not confident it will be "great."

Rich:

Wouldn't you hate to see what the critics and detractors would say,
though? "They're past their prime." "They haven't got it anymore."
"Tried and failed." "Should stay on the Oldies circuit."
As anyone who saw them live in the last year could tell you: No freakin'
way!!!

> The Seige project sounds like a good idea, but to take advantage of Pete's
> consistent interest in older concept albums like Tommy and Quad, I'd really
> like to see Lifehouse.

And I think that it's the most likely studio project, if it's not
all-new material. The only thing that might make it NOT happen is that
PSYCHO explored that ground already.
Your suggestion of making sure the old songs which didn't make it to WN
are included is definitely what I'd prefer. New songs...well, it would
depend. Pete's writing style is quite different these days. I'd hate to
see songs that don't flow with the old ones.

> My sense is that the current tour drew many music fans who had heard great
> things about The Who but didn't know squat about Quad

Most likely true, but don't you think they were impressed nonetheless?

> I don't see any other category to put them in other than " Old rock
> band "

David:

I should have been more clear. I meant: "Old Rock band that can do no
better than rely on their glorious past." I think Townshend & The Who
are NOT in this catagory.

> Next thing you know, Bill will say Pete is a better songwriter than Ray
> Davies...  Hmmmmm, OK, I'll give him that one.

Deadly M:

But only just barely.

> When all is said
> and done 100 years from now precious few will know or care what any of
> them wrote

BOUNKEY:

Oh, I don't know...it's already been 30 years. Only 70 to go...

> The Beatles were the first major musical talent to start writing their own
> material.

Jerry:

This is not strictly true. Off the top of my head, I can cite Brian
Wilson from The Beach Boys. I suppose it hinges on what you mean by
"major." The BB were the most popular American band in the early
`60s...and they were around before The Beatles, even if just barely.
Then there was Eddie Cochran...Buddy Holly...
I think this is just another one of those things The Beatles got credit
for undeservedly. Not to take anything away from them, but...these are
the facts.

> Here's a news flash for you: The Who may have never even come into existence
> without the Beatles.

Uh...it's also true that The Who were performing (w/o Moon) before The
Beatles were more than a bar band...probably still unknown in London.

- -- 

            Cheers                ML

 "There's a million ways to laugh/And every one's a path..."

            Pete Townshend