[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Have The Who broken the curse?



> >   John Hughes says they never broke up.  Pete's been fibbing to us. 
>They've been officially listed as a company all this time.  ;)
>
>Irrespective of whether the band broke up as an entity, they would have 
>been very foolish to have dissolved the company (The Who Group Ltd) as I 
>assume all contracts were between the company and 3rd Parties. Break up the 
>company. and hey? Who gets the money? Not the Who (or Keith's estate)!

Sure, there is that awkwardness.

Public perception has always been that they quit and The Who was no more.  
It's interesting to realize at this point that The Who really is a business 
entity rather than just a band and it's been there all the time.  It's been 
dormant, but ready to go any time they wanted, and all Pete's hedging about 
"Who things" on the QUAD tour was nonsense.  If the money is going into The 
Who Group Ltd, then it's The Who out there doing a tour.  ;)


>I imagine it would very easy to introduce Zak as a director of the
>company; I thought that he was effectively a member of the "group",
>anyway.

Roger seemed to avoid the question when an interviewer asked if Zak were now 
part of The Who, which seems to indicate there might be a slight problem 
with it.  It's possible that they're wary of introducing another partner 
after Kenney (Does he still get a share?  What about Rabbit?), but my guess 
would be that Zak would rather remain a free agent.  Rather than get caught 
in the bind Kenney was in, where he becomes a quarter member of The Who but 
they don't do anything, I think it's likely Zak would rather charge by the 
gig.  After all, they might all get in a fight tomorrow and quit again.


keets