There Will Be a WHO tour, so Please Dispell All Rumours
Frate, Chris (Indust, PTL)
chris.frate at penske.com
Fri Feb 3 14:21:24 CST 2006
You are way too hard on Rachel. It is true that his popularity helps her out, but they've been together a long time. I think it is unfair to imply that she is glomming onto him to forward her own ends at this point. Why didn't she open for The Who on the last three tours if that what was she was after?
I, for one, am happy to be receiving an unprecedented amount of Pete fan interaction on the website via "In the Attic". I happen to like Rachel's songs, but even if I didn't I would still be grateful for the end result for Pete/Who fans. It is surely also true that Roger is a big part of Pete's surge of activity now as well, but why do we always think that Pete only does Who stuff when someone else pushes him into it?
-Chris in Cleveland
From: thewho-bounces at igtc.com [mailto:thewho-bounces at igtc.com]On Behalf
Of O'Neal, Kevin W.
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:52 PM
To: thewho at igtc.com
Subject: There Will Be a WHO tour, so Please Dispell All Rumours
>Jim M NakedI
>Previous message: There Will Be a WHO tour, so Please Dispell All
>>to say that
>> without her Pete and Roger wouldn't have continued, and that Rachel
>> Pete's inspiration...I think is a bit of a stretch.
>Here's what I see.
>I see a man
You've been watching that Seattle DVD too much (A man is a man)....
>who couldn't seem to find the motivation or
>desire to create new music for many years.
He's been kicking out new music since before Rachel arrived on the
>I see a lot of activity going on;
>new songs being shared, plans being announced, progress being made.
Roger, Roger, Roger, and more.....Roger!
>I see his partner not just being understanding about him doing
>will take him away for long periods of time, but actually encouraging
Rachel gains by Pete's continued work.
>I mean the basement/attic stuff and now this willingness
>to go on tour. She doesn't *have* to do that stuff.
No, and she doesn't *have* to have a career either.
>And, if she took the
>attitude that he doesn't really need all that at his age and he should
>take it easy,
No Pete = no Rachel publicity.
No Pete work = no Pete publicity, no people going to his web site.
No web site = no In the Attic "show."
No in the Attic show = no collaboration with stud boy-friend...one very
well known Pete Townshend
No collaboration with stud boy-friend.....one very well known Pete
Townshend.. = ..no indi #1 and all the added publicity that comes with
Cynical, I know. But, you can't ignore it.
And, who's to say that that is a bad thing?
My point is that Rachel has her own motivations to encourage Pete (if
she in fact is even doing that), along with just wanting to be there for
I mean, what sort of person would she be if she tried to *prevent* Pete
from doing this?
She'd be without one stud boy-friend...one very well known Pete
Townshend....and also all the publicity and career perks that go with
And don't think they *both* don't know this.
They're not stupid.
>or why doesn't he focus on his own work
Pete *knows* his own work will yield him very little at this point.
And, he *is* focusing on his own work. His own work at this point isn't
Also, I really think he wants to do this with Roger.
For the first time in his career, I honestly believe that he is very
close to his thorn in his ass...Roger, and wants to do right by him.
>instead of rehashing
>what he and Roger did 40 years ago, I suspect we'd be seeing things
I suspect it would be quite similar, with perhaps added delay.
I can see Rachel being his support, but his inspiration???
You make it sound like Pete would fold tent, curl up in a ball, and fade
away if Rachel weren't around.
>> Just my very HO.
>And there's no HO like Kevin's HO.
My wife would schmack you one if she read that!
Kevin in VT
This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.
thewho mailing list
thewho at igtc.com
More information about the TheWho