Pete's Diary



Scott Schrade schrade at akrobiz.com
Mon Mar 28 17:23:10 CST 2005


> I'd like to hear from people who have been adamant that continuing to tour
> without Keith and John and without new material was diminishing the band's
> crediblity and see what they think of this latest development. 

Well, I spoke with one of those people (not on the list) & he was very
relieved when he heard that the album & tour had been scrapped/postponed.
Those people are happy about the news.

> Pete commented at Mansfield last year about the stagnant set.  He told us
> they were going to try to mix it up a bit and then played a set with about 4
> different songs in it.

Adding four songs is mixing it up for The Who.  Whereas, from what I hear,
the Stones change about 50% of their setlist each tour.  Imagine if The Who
did that.  

> Rather than deluding himself that he'd be famous without The Who, I think
> Pete deludes himself that he doesn't care about being famous. 

Possibly.  And I think he has mood swings.  Big mood swings.  Mood swings
that last years.  He's inconsistent & erratic.  And that's just fine, I guess.  Isn't
that one of the reasons we're drawn to him?

> I think he'd *say* that he would be happy making his own music, even if it's 
> much less popular than what he's done with the band. 

Ah, *say,* but not really mean.  Right?  

> And some of his solo projects bear that out, most of which were hardly 
> designed for maximum popular appeal. 

This I disagree with.  I believe Pete wants to be popular. (!)  (If I'm not under-
standing your position, Jim, I apologize.)  What artist doesn't want his or her
work to be enjoyed, studied, contemplated by the masses?  The converse
of that would mean that Pete works hard (and slowly!) on his solo projects
hoping to only sell 50 or a 100 thousand copies.

> > Roger knows this, you and I know this, but Pete still is fighting to
> > keep up with Clapton and Sting, etc.
> 
> I've heard several people say things like this, but it's never sounded like
> Pete to me.  Is this theory supported by his statements?

I've never heard him *belittle* his solo career.  Just the odd statement, like
Kevin mentioned, where he makes a sarcastic remark about album sales.

Again, are we to believe that Pete sincerely doesn't want to reach a greater
audience with his solo material?  I mean, I'll accept that he may not get 
horribly depressed when one of his solo albums fails to sell too well, but
I have to believe that he *hopes* they sell well.  On the level of a Sting, or
Clapton.  Why wouldn't he want that? 

> The Boy Who Heard Music all of a sudden sounds much more interesting 
> to me.  

Sounds like a bunch of bollocks to me.   ;-)


- SCHRADE in Akron




More information about the TheWho mailing list