Re: "New" Album?

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>speaking of that, what ever happened to the Greatest Hits Live they were
gonna put out.

Dr J:

It was scrapped, if you're talking about the multi-disc live set later
downgraded to a two-disc set, both to include Tommy LAL. Apparently they
used the IOW release as a model to prove to themselves it wasn't worth it.
That's because MCA has the marketing skills of a 5 year-old, but anyway...we
don't get the set.
I agree with Derick; a live album is not a new album unless ALL of the
material is new, and so far I haven't seen any setlist which had a song I
was unfamiliar with. Besides, we don't need a new album of live material.
Better a boxed set of historic material, like TLAL and some from the WN
tour, and so on. How many damned "new" live versions of Baba do we need,
anyway? Better to have one definitive live version from the period.
As for using older songs, I'd say that also doesn't constitute an "album of
new material." As much as I'd like to see some of his demos made into Who
songs, I don't think that is what was meant.

Scott in Ohio:

About "all the new Who coming out in 2000"...I'll believe that when I see
it. So far, they've got two releases due out within a week of each other
(not bloody likely and the first of which has already been delayed over a
year SO FAR) and an album of new material that hasn't been started yet due
two months later, and reportedly not even written yet, and band member
schedules which would hardly allow for its recording as well. I think
perhaps 2001, which means they could call it 2001: A Who Odyssey or
something like that. Perhaps more like 2010: The Year We Finally Got The BBC
Who.


      Anyway, cheers and a happy NY to you all!
ML