Re: My problem with a new Who album

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>And challenging. That's what I'm looking for. I'd rather be
>surprised than pleased on the first listen.

I finally caught most of the Hall of Fame ceremonies last night, and someone 
said that to be good something had to "sound familiar and surprise you" at 
the same time.


>I would say WHO ARE YOU has precisely the same structural flaws as FACE 
>DANCES. "905" and "Trick Of The Light" (I'll make allowances for "Had 
>Enough") don't sound remotely like the other songs.  Why? Becasue the 
>Townshend tracks are Pete Townshend Solo featuring members of The Who and 
>the Entwistle tracks are John Entwistle Solo featuring members of The Who.

Good point.  This was the time when the others were complaining that Pete 
wanted to micromanage everything.  Pete did say that he and Roger wrote the 
songs on WHO ARE YOU, but likely it's Pete on the lyrics and music, and 
Roger on the arrangements.


>Oh and that's the problem I have with THE WHO BY NUMBERS. With the
>exception of "Success Story" it's a great Pete Townshend solo album on 
>which The Who play very well. But it's very clear, particularly in light of 
>the two albums that followed, that Pete was no longer writing for The Who 
>or his generation but for himself.

Fans still find elements that strike a chord, but you're right that these 
albums have more thought and less feeling than the earlier ones.

>For most of IT'S HARD, however, he returned to writing for the band but the 
>band (and most of The Who's fans) hated it.

The feeling you get from it isn't good.  It's frustration and desperation 
that come from it, which generally everyone has enough of in their own 
lives.  There's been discussion about the concept and the structure of the 
songs that indicates it was well planned, but maybe it was right for Pete at 
the time because that was what he was feeling.  Art does express the artist, 
after all.


>I think Glyn Johns would have integrated it a bit more but the problem was 
>specifically that Pete wanted to do pop songs and John wanted to do the 
>heaviest of heavy metal. And let me infuriate everyone by saying that FACE 
>DANCES with Keith Moon would have been only marginally better if at all.

These songs sounded fine live.  Is it the producer's fault that the 
differences are audible in the album?  TED did complain about the finished 
product.


>Between albums yes. But until WHO ARE YOU not within one album. MY
>GENERATION sounds totally different from A QUICK ONE but "Boris The Spider" 
>and "So Sad About Us" are played in the same style.

I think WHO ARE YOU is pretty well integrated.  I'm not aware of the 
conflicts here as I am when I play FACE DANCES.


> >And people don't want a concept album anymore??
>
>From Friday's The Times of London:
>According to Ben Knowles, the Editor of NME: "Rock opera means the 
>horrible, pompous self-indulgence of rock stars with too much money and 
>taking too many drugs. It is for the prawn sandwich and chablis brigade who 
>want to 'keep in touch' with their music without getting sweaty at a 
>concert. The same people went to see the Three Tenors thinking that was 
>opera."
>
>That's what reviews The Who could expect if they came out with a concept 
>album these days.

What is this guy?  A punk fan?  Punk's spent it's drive, and he might as 
well get over it.  Imitation puts it in the same class as rock opera.  
Aerosmith's right--the music scene is pretty jaded right now, but I'll take 
Pete's rock opera over punk posturing.


keets
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com