Where we all at, at the moment?
NakedI at comcast.net
Mon Jan 17 15:16:46 CST 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Schrade" <schrade at akrobiz.com>
> It all rests on Pete now. It won't be
> like WBN where, even on the songs you're not too fond of, you can still
> say to yourself, "Wow, listen to that fill by Moon!" Or, "Man, listen to
> Entwistle fly!" It'll all rest on the song. They'll have to sell each
You're right. In many ways, this is going to be more like one of Pete's
solo albums. But, Roger's going to be singing and, allegedly, contributing
songs! That's exciting. It's been 10 years or so since we've had a full
album of new Pete Townshend songs and 20+ years since Roger's been involved
> Hell, it may never....
STOP right there!
> What I consider "a stir" would be at least a medium-sized hit (or two!)
> & some rotation on the classic rock stations. That would be a major
> success as far as I'm concerned.
How much of a "stir" has this new U2 album caused? About what you're
describing, right? What can The Who do with about 1% of the publicity?
> If it's truly mediocre then it won't be talked about for long. By anyone.
> Even us.
Sometimes really mediocre stuff is very popular. Think 80's Genesis.
> Good point. And I don't think [The Stones] get much classic rock airplay
> their new albums when they're released (correct me if I'm wrong).
No, I think you're right. The chart stations play younger acts and the
classic rock stations want to play songs everyone knows. There's really no
place on the radio for an "old" act with new material. That's what I mean
when I say I'd rather the album was good than noticed.
> More selfishly, I'm not fine with that. I want a great album. A great
I hear that. I'm confident it will be good. Pete Townshend has never made
a bad album, in my mind, and he won't start now. But, will it be great?
That depends what you mean. What do you consider to be the last *great*
album Pete or The Who have released?
More information about the TheWho