Pete Townshend

Also: Just remembered that theres a new Who album coming out soon, which will be followed by another tour!!

Ever since Keith Moon died, whatever they are, it's not The Who.

Also: Just remembered that theres a new Who album coming out soon, which will be followed by another tour!!

More like the Pete and Roger show than the Who IMHO. :wink: --the dog

Pete and Roger and Entwisle and Moon, true, that was the Who. It's actually called Who 2, lol. Pete and Roger, Pete being the guy that wrote ALL the songs except maybe what, 5? And Roger, the one whose voice is considered among the best rock n roll voices, and who put so much into all their songs.

Granted, its not the same without the Ox, but they have a great bass player, who does just as well.

eep double post

Taso,

I've seen The Who, and I've seen the Roger and Pete show. They don't compare.

The Who were young, vibrant, rebeleous, sincerely and passionately believing in the lyrics they sang, and the band had amazing energy because they were just barely holding it together on stage.

What they have now is just an overproduced Who tribute, that's about half as good as one's you can see in Vegas for half the price.

Old men singing "We're not gonna take it Gonna break it, gonna shake it," is not inspiring, it's not even comical. It's just sad. And breaking into a rousing chorus of

"Let's get together
Before we get much older
Teenage wasteland"

Should fill Pete and Roger with enough of a sense of irony to clue them in. That it doesn't is just pathetic. They've become the very thing most of their real career fought against.

Patzer, I gotta disagree with you here. I saw them at the Garden last year, Pete and Roger, and even the "old guys" (fans) who went to that, said it was the BEST the WHO had ever been, ever. The critics of the concert said the same thing, never had they seen the Who better than they were.

From this, and the other topic, I get the feeling you have a problem with old guys rocking out. ;)

Either way, it was an amazing show, and the only reason I sat down for one song was because a herniated disk /sciatica had me in pain. But, it was an AMAZING show, I've never seen anything as exciting.

Taso,

I have no problem with old guys rockin' out. One of my favorite all time rockers is Iggy, and he's doing it as well as he ever did.

I have a problem with reformed groups, missing half their original members, playing 40 year old songs trying to pretend to be rockstars and putting everything into a theatrical production to the point that none of what makes a great rock show possible -- the authentic interaction between the crowd and the band -- is removed from the equation.

Go to an Iggy Pop show and you'll hear songs that were recorded this century . . . and you'll see someone aware that he does in fact have a live audience in front of him.

While I didn't see any Who shows last year, I've seen them after Moon, twice, and they're were not the same band. So why continue to prented you are?

Because it's all marketing hype to 50 year olds who are having major mid-life crisises and trying to relive their teen years.

I'm not sure what's more pathetic . . . the people on stage jumping around in tights when the look on their face shows they really don't care if they're there or not . .. or the folks that think spectacle they're getting is worth the $150 they've parted with.

You can't be a rock star and a corporate shill. They don't go together.

Aside from the obsurdity of pretending to be a rebel while being your own corporate entity (as most every rock "star" has become lately), it's pretty damn hard to "rock" when everything's as tightly correographed as any britney spears show.

My problem is that I really dislike dishonest music. Age has nothing to do with it. Lack of artistic integrity does.

Hmmm.......

I can't think of a way to comment politely.

What a narrow minded, sad and judgemental way of thinking.

You know if I'm up and playing in front of people 10 years from now when I'm in my fifties then more power to me.

If Roger and Pete can keep going until they are 90, more power to them.

If I've got $150 to blow to go see a seminal rock and roll band, what is that to you?

You only go around once. Rock til you can't anymore. Well unless you make it to 50, I guess.

How can you judge me? Do you know me? Reliving my teen years? I do it a hell of a lot better now than I ever did when I was in my teens.

Forgive my rant, but that was one of the most insulting posts I've read in a long time.

BTW, I've seen Iggy Pop and he's a long, long way short of The Who.

Nick,

Agreed.

Agree absolutely.
I have a problem with reformed groups, missing half their original members, playing 40 year old songs trying to pretend to be rockstars and putting everything into a theatrical production to the point that none of what makes a great rock show possible -- the authentic interaction between the crowd and the band -- is removed from the equation.

They're going on tour to promote their new album, not 40 year old songs anyways.

What a narrow minded, sad and judgemental way of thinking.

I suppose that's one way of viewing it.

I prefere to think of it as holding up the listening audiences' end of the bargain. I work my tail off screaming, cheering trying to give the band some energy to feed off of. I expect a show to have not been produced to the point that they're not allowed to do that.
You know if I'm up and playing in front of people 10 years from now when I'm in my fifties then more power to me.

absolutely. And when your 60, or 90. No doubt about it. I've not said otherwise.

It's not that Pete and Rojer, or Eric and Ginger and Jack (and the dozens of others) are on stage that I find irksome. It's that they want us to believe they're The Who and Cream (and the Stones, etc. etc. etc).

One of the things that made blues, jazz and rock great was they were authentic expressions of the artists. That's why things like "The Monkeys" deserved the derission they received and it's why pop is different from rock.

If Roger and Pete can keep going until they are 90, more power to them.

Again, I couldn't agree more. But please don't ask me to believe they're the Who. They're not, and they haven't been since '78.
If I've got $150 to blow to go see a seminal rock and roll band, what is that to you?

Nothing. Except you're not seeing a seminal rock and roll band. That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. It's guys who used to be a seminal rock and roll band still acting like they're as important now as they were then.

At least Sinatra had the sense to move to Vegas and do 2 shows on Sundays.
You only go around once. Rock til you can't anymore. Well unless you make it to 50, I guess.

Yup again I agree - rock till you drop. But that's my point, these guys aren't rocking. They're turning into over-produced theater troupes, not rock bands.
How can you judge me? Do you know me? Reliving my teen years? I do it a hell of a lot better now than I ever did when I was in my teens.

I'm saying what I see in the crowds that I see attending these things. If the generalities don't fit you and you're intrinsically different from the norm showing up at these stage shows, then bully for you. I'm not judging you personally. I'm judging what I see happening around me.
Forgive my rant, but that was one of the most insulting posts I've read in a long time.

It was not intended as an insult. I'm sorry that you find strongly held views offensive. But it's a view I hold with great sincerity.
BTW, I've seen Iggy Pop and he's a long, long way short of The Who.

In their prime, the Who was easily one of the all time greats and they trounced Iggy seven ways to sunday.

The difference is that Iggy is still actually caring about creating. He's still trying to say something relivant through his music. And most importantly, he's still playing in a way that allows him to actually interact with an audience.

I'll take most any garage band on my street over these reuninion shows. Not because they're under-50. But because they still care about being musically better today than they were yesterday, compared to trying to be what they were yesterday.

This past spring I got to go see B.B. King. It was a great show because it was a great old bluesman sitting on a stool with a guitar and a hell of a backing band playing great blues. He didn't have on spandex tights while swinging from a trapeze. He was there for the music, and he delievered.

I'm not arguing against playing when you're old. I'm not arguing against playing some oldies. I'm not arguing against paying $150 for a show.

I'm arguing against paying to watch people pretending to be something their not and calling it great rock. Good rock music is first of all an authentic expression of the artist.

I think the generalities you've given to the people who go to these shows is pretty far off anyways. The show I went to, I saw people of all different ages. Even some grandparents (a pair sitting right next to me), I saw many kids in their mid 20's, many teens, and many people that were 35+.

No one is trying to make you believe you're seeing the Who, if you don't think you are, thats cool.

Go to see Pete and Roger, does that help? All that is, is a way of saying it. You're not seeing the Who, you're seeing Pete and Roger, okay, is that any better?

Might I reinforce the idea, that all the critics, and everyone I talked to about that show, said they'd never seen The Who do a better show than that.

By the way, these guys aren't wearing spandex, and they never have. The most exciting thing they do on stage is Roger swings his micraphone, and Pete does his windmill (a move that I still can't seem to understand the physics of, when I try it, my picking hand is about 5 inches away from the headstock, instead of down by the pickups.)

They aren't pretending to be anything other than 50 year old guys having fun playing music for fans that LOVE to hear it. Notice Roger wearing his grandpa glasses at the Live 8 show? He wasn't wearing 'cool shades' they were like reading glasses. He didn't care, he wasn't pretending to be anything.

Taso,

You may well be right. I'll concede that.

The last time I saw the Pete and Roger tour was in the mid-80's on one of the final retirement tours, the second one I think . ..

In my mind I certainly have them lumped into the same category as the Fleetwood Mac reunion, the Eagles reunion, and the on-going spectacle that used to be the Rolling Stones -- largely, I think, because of the number of times they've retired and unretired and all the while trying to convince us that it really is the same band with out Moon (and now Entwistle). And I'm sorry, but The Who doesn't play with horns, a half-dozen backing singers, some second guitarist trying to look cool, a keyboardist, and god knows what else they had up there.

Perhaps they've stepped up and started playing and being forward looking again, and if that's the case hurah for them and I'll try and pull them out of that category in my head in the future. But I've no interest in seeing the Who played through a midi chain off a coule of keyboards while the backing vocals dance ... That AIN'T the Who . if that's not what they're still doing, then at least they've made half of a right decission.

But I'm still distressed when I look at the summer tour schedule for the local theaters and it reads like a great 1979 tour year . . .

http://music.channel.aol.com/live_8_concert/highlights

Scroll down to the Who. No Back up singers, nothing like that. Actually, Roger's glasses look pretty cool, and Pete looks really cool too.