[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Who



> > What I'm thinking is if The Who go with their classic sound, they risk 
>being perceived as having nothing to contribute (essentially making an 
>album for the money, cashing in while there's still a market).
>
>I don't think the sound is the issue here.

I think TED have already developed past their classic sound.  All the 
seventies crowd complained no end about Pete's guitar and John's bass and 
Rabbit keyboards on the last tour.  Several complained about Zak not being 
Keith, too, but they really were hopeless.

Also, since the last Who album, Pete has developed a lot in sophistication 
as far as music composition goes.  From what he said on the tour, I gather 
he's bored by simple rock 'n' roll.  If everybody liked what he played on 
the tour, though, maybe there'll be a meeting of minds.  I think in several 
cases we heard his current musical technique integrated with The Who.


>The *songs* have to be decent.  I'd be happy with the "classic sound" & a 
>good batch of songs.  I just want a good rock album. <snip>
>Honestly, if a new WHO album had 6 - 10 kick-ass songs on it & the 
>production sounded exactly the same as WHO'S NEXT, I wouldn't be 
>disapponted.  That's not to say I believe the next WHO album *should* have 
>the WN sound; I'm stressing that the actual songs *have* to be catchy, 
>intelligent, loud, & raw for this hypothetical new WHO album to be anything 
>more than a joke.

No more "Behind Blue Eyes?"  Not kick ass enough?  What do you mean by raw?  
What do you mean by "upbeat" songs?  Something cheerful and reassuring?  
Examples?


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