Re: A new album...

[Rich Bogovich <bogie@itis.com>]

>> I would absolutely LOVE to have a new Who studio album, and I think they
>> should work on one even if they're not confident it will be "great."

>Rich:

>Wouldn't you hate to see what the critics and detractors would say,
>though? "They're past their prime." "They haven't got it anymore."
>"Tried and failed." "Should stay on the Oldies circuit."
>As anyone who saw them live in the last year could tell you: No freakin'
>way!!!

Mark,

I probably should have elaborated:  There are at least two reasons I think
The Who "should work on a new album even if they're not confident it will be
'great'," one being that I'd be surprised if they could ever come to the
same judgment about a project!  In particular, it strikes me that Pete is
becoming pickier and pickier (based on my understanding of what he has
approved and what he has rejected with regard to all the CD reissues).  

Another reason they should work on one even though greatness isn't a
foregone conclusion is that it could evolve into something great.  When I
listen to any of Pete's Who demos, I usually enjoy them and think he did a
"good" job but I am almost always blown away at how different they ended up
when recorded by the full Who and made the leap to "great".

And you're right that I'd hate to see the reactions from detractors, but for
whatever weird reason there seems to be a certain segment of the music world
that is going to criticize The Who no matter what they do (or don't do, for
that matter).  So even if they release a fantastic studio album I will be
braced for negative reactions.

>> The Seige project sounds like a good idea, but to take advantage of Pete's
>> consistent interest in older concept albums like Tommy and Quad, I'd really
>> like to see Lifehouse.

>And I think that it's the most likely studio project, if it's not
>all-new material. The only thing that might make it NOT happen is that
>PSYCHO explored that ground already.

>Your suggestion of making sure the old songs which didn't make it to WN
>are included is definitely what I'd prefer. New songs...well, it would
>depend. Pete's writing style is quite different these days. I'd hate to
>see songs that don't flow with the old ones.

That's a good point.  Like the one he created for the Broadway Tommy, which
is a song I don't dislike but also doesn't fit with the rest of Tommy.  I
agree that Pete's writing style has been very different for many years, but
I think he could rise to the challenge based on some of the meatier,
beatier, bigger and bouncier songs on Psychoderelict, for example, or White
City (though I suppose I'll have to leap over Iron Man).

>> My sense is that the current tour drew many music fans who had heard great
>> things about The Who but didn't know squat about Quad

>Most likely true, but don't you think they were impressed nonetheless?

I know many who were, but I still was a bit stunned when I saw some people
leave concerts during "The Rock" (for a beer? for good??) and I strongly
suspect this was because they just weren't recognizing "enough" of the songs
in their minds.  I can sort of relate to this mentality, because I almost
always need to hear a song several times before I can decide what I really
think about it.

Oh, one other point I probably should've made previously is that I think
it's a good time for a new Who album because it WOULDN'T be forced out of
them under a record company contract (as was looming overhead around 1982).
Pete has taken a long break from writing for the band, and my instincts say
he has one more damn good Who album left in him--geez, I'm starting to sound
like Roger (maybe next I'll start matching his physique!).

Thank you all for listening...

Rich B.