Re: a new album

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

>I don't think we'll see a new album of matetrial from the boys -too much to 
>risk, verses almost no upside. I do wish that Pete had tried some of his 
>solo stuff (PD esp.) with the group though.

PD is very lovely the way it is, but that doesn't preclude a Who version.  I 
predict it would be much angrier.  IRON MAN would be the interesting album 
to speculate about, though.  Would recording by The Who have saved it?  
Would it be possible to resurrect at all?

One upside seems to be that FACE DANCES and IT'S HARD would no longer be The 
Who's last albums.  It may be questionable whether fans or critics will 
receive a new album any better than these, but at least TED might be able to 
produce another album or albums that THEY like better than these two.

Plus, Pete has other opportunities these days in the way of musicals, movie 
versions of rock opera, etc., and it certainly wouldn't hurt to have new 
material coming along to continue that work.  He can accomplish more with 
The Who than he can working independently (as all of them can), so the 
association certainly has benefits again.


>Why no new album? Well, writing has to get harder with age - when you're 
>young, you can use teenage angst, rebellion, anti-establishment, and many 
>topics as sources for your music (hell, even love works, sometimes). But as 
>you age, and get successful (read 'rich'), some of those topics lose their 
>accessibility to you

Definitely a factor.


>So as far as Pete's topics go, Pete writing about rebellion? as a member of 
>the successful establishment, why would he want to cause a revolution?

Pete's kind of on the fringe (as actually they all are, I suppose).  Pete is 
a perpetual misfit, and I don't think any amount of camoflage will make him 
into an ordinary establishment success.

Actually, TED have been doing very well with the establishment just lately.  
They're flirting with it, feeling it out, and may come up with some very 
successful projects once things work out.

Discussion on another list recently has been about The Who's legacy, and a 
couple of fans have mentioned how it has suffered from the fact that they've 
mostly been a live act and pretty much neglected to establish a legacy other 
than hearsay.  Some of this work with the establishment (Broadway, movies, 
orchestras) may remedy that problem.

>Pete writing about love - which kind - respectful, lost, youth, anyway, my 
>drift is here - how about a song on the evil of booze and drugs - that'd 
>sell well.)

I think he's already done that.  ;)


>Then, to get it to market in a world that doesn't market things fairly. 
>Don't forget the video world - can you see the guys doing a popular video? 
>(dancing girls, etc...? I could see them smashing things - but that would 
>be simplistic and I think it would cheapen the history of the sport)

We've discussed it.  Looking back through the videos, I think the 
performances hold up very well as videos.  The arty "Happy Jack" and 
"Cobwebs and Strange/Call Me Lightning" have lasted extremely well.  Also, I 
think Pete's "Rough Boys" has.  All classics.

There are some subjects that could use dancing girls.  I joke about it, but 
I really do think PD should be marketed with the S&M scene.  It's almost 
funny in the album, but it's got an edge that would make a tough black 
leather video, and would be a sharp addition to the stage show, as well.

As a joke, we could always start the video off like Spinal Tap's video. :)


>Then, to deal with a press that has always loved to hate the Who. To give 
>them more ammunition - why? Always would be the comparison to Tommy , LAL, 
>and Who's Next. Plus all that BS about their ages etc.

The alternative is to do nothing.  So what do TED do with the rest of their 
lives?  They're artists.  They're accomplished, they're productive and 
they've still got a great edge.  Why waste it?


keets

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