New album by the Who

by **ANGRY** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:21 pm

jeff lynne, whom i like, did a few solo albums, and when they didn't fly off the shelves, did his last as ELO...none of the other band mates were involved. trent reznor constanlty reinvents NIN. how many changes has billy corgan had in smashing pumkins, rumored, again, to reunite. this type of thing goes on all the time, and worse.
i just wish pete and roger would come up with something different and special, reflective of the strong partnership they had with the others...it just seems...unseemly, to go that route, especially when they are both rather talented.
maybe, considering their past motiffs included some humoresque aspects...they could title the album " Not Necessarily the Who"..that'd be something unique

by **2 of 3** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:52 pm

I think we had the Jeff Lynn discussion a while back. Jeff played all the instruments on the ELO albums, so Jeff would be ELO even if it is a solo album. Kind of like what's his name in World Party.

...at least I think that was the story?

by **kylestyle** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:25 pm

I have Pete Townshend's Tommy demos from 1968-9, and they are amazing...startling things to listen to. I prefer them to the actual final product. He's more than capable of being a 1-man Who if he so wishes (no disrespect to Rog or those who have passed on).

Like Esto says, they were definitely "Who-enough" at Live 8 and it's exciting news something new will come out under the Who banner.

by **Paperback Writer** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:38 am

On recording, yes, the Who name is very viable - on stage - NO WAY! I saw the original Who and John and Keith were totally indispensible to that unit.

Roger and especially Pete are (in) credible enough to perform with others under any other banner than The Who. Perhaps: "Who's Left" could be the title of their next album.

I suggest a name reflecting their Who heritage - but not simply Who - like nothing's changed. It was odd after Keith died when they did that. Now...
It is true how much Pete has always done with the writing, recording - immense talent. His intial version of "Pure and Easy" exceeds the Who version by a mile and is truely one of the greatest songs ever recorded!

by **ANGRY** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:24 am

i wonder how many other "bands" are not really bands...but fronts for one artists...suddenly seems a pervasive thing. why fly under the banner of a band, when you could just always be Jeff Lynne ( or the jeff lynne band)or Pete Townsend ( the pete townsend band) or whomever....i'm finding it difficult to believe that history will now be rewritten and the effects of entwistle and moon be just so much detrius, since the who is really just pete...or ELO really just jeff...or pink floyd really just roger waters...maybe thats the real reason paul and ringo will never tour/record ...the beatles really were just john and paul...where will it end

by **esto** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:14 pm

Well, now you'll understand an importance of Beatles, There was huge money offered them to perform together. Same thing about Zeppelin.

by **Highamster** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:14 pm

Lazarus_2 wrote:
Highamster wrote:I remember hearing something about them delaying it for awhile after Starkey left. My hopes arn't high on it as a Who album. I'ld probelly just see it as a Roger & Pete album more than anything else.
well pete wrote 90% of songs... it's who, if Roger and Pete believe it's Who...

Yeah, because we all know that nobody contribute to any part to the song apart from the songwriter. :roll:

by **Genuine_Indian_Guru** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:24 pm

BruceMirken wrote:Whether they admit it or not, the band known as The Who no longer exists. Daltrey and Townsend can make an album if they like, but they are not The Who, any more than Paul and Ringo are The Beatles. They should honor the contribution of their deceased mates by not pretending to be The Who anymore.

I Agree......but since" The Who" is a name brand... any record with those two words will sell better than any record with these two..... Daltrey/Townsend

by **Berkeleyan** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:49 am

Paperback Writer wrote:On recording, yes, the Who name is very viable - on stage - NO WAY! I saw the original Who and John and Keith were totally indispensible to that unit.

Roger and especially Pete are (in) credible enough to perform with others under any other banner than The Who. Perhaps: "Who's Left" could be the title of their next album.

I suggest a name reflecting their Who heritage - but not simply Who - like nothing's changed. It was odd after Keith died when they did that. Now...
It is true how much Pete has always done with the writing, recording - immense talent. His intial version of "Pure and Easy" exceeds the Who version by a mile and is truely one of the greatest songs ever recorded!

YES, YES, YES, YES.
As for me, just waiting for Pete and Rog to deliver the goods (hopefully).

by **Lazarus_2** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:01 am

ANGRY wrote:jeff lynne, whom i like, did a few solo albums, and when they didn't fly off the shelves, did his last as ELO...none of the other band mates were involved. trent reznor constanlty reinvents NIN. how many changes has billy corgan had in smashing pumkins, rumored, again, to reunite. this type of thing goes on all the time, and worse.
i just wish pete and roger would come up with something different and special, reflective of the strong partnership they had with the others...it just seems...unseemly, to go that route, especially when they are both rather talented.
maybe, considering their past motiffs included some humoresque aspects...they could title the album " Not Necessarily the Who"..that'd be something unique

how 'bout "Who's Left?"

New album by the Who

Who is online