Rachel Fuller song on Who album?
Will
who will play on a Rachel Fuller track he is putting on the new album? WTF?
frazzz
Will
"frazzz" <fra...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d835d32082e25c79...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
> Alright I'll say it (with tongue firmly in cheek): Yoko Ono anyone?
>
>
I understand he is trying to help her career, but I'm starting to get a bit
uneasy about this idea of using The Who as a vehicle to boost her career. I
watched ITA the other day and noticed she mentioned that some "hard core"
Who fans don't seem to like her. Gee, that's a shock, lol. I would love to
know what Roger thinks about all this. Has anyone else noticed that Roger
seems to be a bit grumpy, and he doesn't appear on ITA for any small talk?
wholi...@yahoo.com
Will wrote:
> Check out Pete's Diaries dated June 16, where he mentions other musicians
> who will play on a Rachel Fuller track he is putting on the new album? WTF?
John's out, and Rachel's in, as contributor to the WHO, WOOOOWWWW SIGH
SIGH UGH. I actually don't mind Rachel but there are so many reasons to
not do this. I will say this:
-Remember who THE WHO's fans are-a bunch of scumbags(mostly men-Oh I
know, I'm soo sexist-fuck off)
-She would have to stand side to side with Townshend as a composer
(John's songs had to have humor, quirkiness, ridiculously macho themes,
etc., so not to compete)
-
frazzz
Who and tour/record again. For that I am grateful. I bet Roger is too.
Pete seems happy, centered, and in love. Good on him. He deserves a
partner to share his life with. It's clear that Pete is helping Rachel's
career with "In the Attic" and linking his website and blog activities
with hers. The Who seems tucked amidst all this. This is the new reality
and where Pete is at. He is, more than ever, in charge of The Who and its
direction. Roger wants nothing to do with computers and websites, but
Pete recognizes this is the present and future of music and is embracing
the online universe. As far as Rachel Fuller songs and her musicians
appearing on Who albums I don't know. If it's good and it works, great.
The old "gang of four" Who is gone. The new Who family, like it or not,
includes Pete's girlfriend and her circle. Music must change....
-fraz
Will
Pete has a love life, good for him. I don't disagree with you about that. He
deserves it. My problem is using The Who as a vehicle to push her career. If
Pete wants to help her career as Pete Townshend, great. But as you said, the
band seems tucked amidst all this. Is that a good thing? No comment at this
point. Personally, she is getting on my nerves, especially with those ITA
small talk sessions. How boring can it get? Does anyone care what type of
shoes or dresses she wears? Geez. And Roger is nowhere to be found on these
ITA chats. Interesting. Why do we need a Rachel Fuller song on a Who album
when we have one of the best songwriters in rock history, namely Pete
Townshend, to write songs. A Rachel Fuller-penned song with her musicians is
not exactly a Who song, IMHO.
DGDevin
Well said.
It is what is, we can like it or hate it but that's the way it is going to
happen. The original Who died with Keith Moon, everything that has come
after that was a lesser thing, still worthwhile to be sure, but the glory
days are long gone and nothing we say or do will bring them back. If Rachel
is a big part of why Pete is back at work, well good for her, and if she
gets to be part of the show, well I guess I can live with that. I've been
listening to this band since I was a kid, it's been thirty years since I
first saw them live, I'm not about to dump them now just because Pete wants
to record one of his girlfriend's songs. And it won't be the first time The
Who have done a cover song, surely. ;^)
Biff
wrote:
>I'm not about to dump them now just because Pete wants
>to record one of his girlfriend's songs. And it won't be the first time The
>Who have done a cover song, surely. ;^)
Whatever it is, I'll bet it's better than Cache Cache.
Mike
"Will" <wil...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IfCdnR1SxJ_Z2w7Z...@comcast.com...
> Check out Pete's Diaries dated June 16, where he mentions other musicians
> who will play on a Rachel Fuller track he is putting on the new album?
> WTF?
accessed into the grid. "I Can Fly" on a 'Who' album? Ray High's acid trip.
But what would Moon think or do?
Will
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:sDKkg.6784$o4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I'm not sure there is proof that Rachel is the main reason Pete is back to
work. If she gets to be part of the show, you'll see this 30-year fan run
for a bathroom break during the concert. Thankfully, I've watched only a few
ITA shows. That was enough for me. Talk about irritating. I thought I was
watching Sharon Osbourne for awhile. And Mikey? Nuff said. Sure, The Who
recorded several cover songs, but Peter Huntingdon, Stuart Ross and Jolyon
Dixon do not constitute "The Who." I would call them The What.
Will
"Mike" <dr...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Hv6dnSK5vJE_HQ7Z...@comcast.com...
Who2 is gone. This is Who3. Actually, I'm starting to lose count.
Mike
Mike
Who 3 was with John. Confusing, I know.
Will
Yeah, how about....The Huh? lol
DGDevin
>
> I'm not sure there is proof that Rachel is the main reason Pete is back to
> work.
Didn't Pete make some reference to that in an interview or diary entry
awhile back?
If she gets to be part of the show, you'll see this 30-year fan run
> for a bathroom break during the concert. Thankfully, I've watched only a
> few ITA shows. That was enough for me. Talk about irritating. I thought I
> was watching Sharon Osbourne for awhile. And Mikey? Nuff said.
Ahem, I won't dispute your description of ITA, it can charitably be
described as an amateur production. But if that's the price we must pay for
Pete taking The Who seriously again, I guess I'll grit my teeth and suffer
through the chattering to get to the part where Pete plays music. ;^)
Will
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> "Will" <wil...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:GPidnfJYQZPNHg7Z...@comcast.com...
>>
>> I'm not sure there is proof that Rachel is the main reason Pete is back
>> to work.
>
> Didn't Pete make some reference to that in an interview or diary entry
> awhile back?
>
It's certainly possible, but I didn't read it anywhere. I may have missed
it.
> If she gets to be part of the show, you'll see this 30-year fan run
>> for a bathroom break during the concert. Thankfully, I've watched only a
>> few ITA shows. That was enough for me. Talk about irritating. I thought I
>> was watching Sharon Osbourne for awhile. And Mikey? Nuff said.
>
> Ahem, I won't dispute your description of ITA, it can charitably be
> described as an amateur production. But if that's the price we must pay
> for Pete taking The Who seriously again, I guess I'll grit my teeth and
> suffer through the chattering to get to the part where Pete plays music.
> ;^)
>
>
You are being charitable ;-) I wish there was a fast forward button to
Pete's stuff, lol
Jeff K
keifspoon
Rachel Fuller's drummer...what's next, Rachel Fuller's 3rd cousin on
her fathers side playing on the new album? I can just imagine what John
and Keith would think of all this. When i think of the name "The Who",
Nicky Hopkins means more to me than any of these other people...
bria...@bellsouth.net
> It's not the band change count, it's the number of members. Roger and
> Pete. Who 3 was with John. Confusing, I know.
I thought we agreed on our last discussion that we were up to Who4 or Who5
by now
Who1: 1964-1978
Who2: 1979-1988
Who3: 1989-1997
Who4: 1999-2002
Who5: 2002-present
BTW, if you're gritting your teeth, maybe it's time to bail.
--
-Brian in Atlanta
The Who This Month!
http://www.thewhothismonth.com
DGDevin
>
>> Didn't Pete make some reference to that in an interview or diary entry
>> awhile back?
>>
>
> It's certainly possible, but I didn't read it anywhere. I may have missed
> it.
I have a good memory except it doesn't go back very far and sometimes
remembers stuff that didn't happen, but other than that it's great. But I
thought Pete said something not so long ago about Rachel being part of why
he had energy for The Who again....
> You are being charitable ;-) I wish there was a fast forward button to
> Pete's stuff, lol
Yeah, Rachel and Mikey have very few interesting things to say, they remind
me of the hosts on some local cable TV show, "The Arts and Crafts Hour" or
something, and yet they keep on chattering away. That's the internet for
you, anyone can now have their own show, including people who have five
minutes of content to fill up an hour....
Slip Kid
>>> Who2 is gone. This is Who3. Actually, I'm starting to lose count.
>> It's not the band change count, it's the number of members. Roger and
>> Pete. Who 3 was with John. Confusing, I know.
>
> I thought we agreed on our last discussion that we were up to Who4 or Who5
> by now
>
> Who1: 1964-1978
> Who2: 1979-1988
> Who3: 1989-1997
> Who4: 1999-2002
> Who5: 2002-present
>
> BTW, if you're gritting your teeth, maybe it's time to bail.
Or past time?
If anyone made it 'this far' & is pissed, um, what were they waiting for!?
Plus, it's almost 'inside baseball' (apologies to the international
community during this holy year of football).
That is, a Yankee fan could do a Micky Mantle1, 2, and so on.
No, your break-down is not the same by a long shot? (Let's keep it here,
though)
What matters to my (and should only piss off the envious of what 'we'
have and they don't:
"2002-present"
Hello!
"present"?
Shit, we have one.
And with no-bad luck we have future!
I'm may hear a 'Who' which isn't 'perfect' in the latest single? Yeah,
'The Mirrored Door' is missing some things which were do-able - - But I
was prepared to hear a lot worse and be satisfied - - Maybe my only
disappointment is they were soooooooo close? And, it's only a glimpse,
anyway...
Regarding the obvioous:
We should all be so lucky to find someone like Rachel. If she has Pete
jazzed, I'm thinkin' she's no slouch.
The dispatches from Rabbit didn't sound like a band in ruin. And even
though he's but one voice (and not even in possession of birth-right Who
credentials!!!) I'm not ready to make the leap and say "The Who is dead,
Rachel done did 'em in."
When Pete rings me up I'll jump at the chance to tell him why/what a fan
likes.
Fer mate advisin'...not me!
Shit, he didn't need me to find Rachel & I'd not want the job to find
the mate to please him.
I'm gonna suck it up, wait a few months and till then be glad that the
band I chose to get behind 40 years ago is still doin' it.
Not only better than bands that were here and buckled.
Gimme a break:
If The Who (w/or w/out a #) got on stage tonite?
If I wuz a band I'd prolly defer and let them have the stage last.
Nah, The Who is still not a band you would wish to follow.
The Who would be getting the call for an encore..not you.
Michael
DGDevin
news:tIRkg.15389$gv2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> I thought we agreed on our last discussion that we were up to Who4 or Who5
> by now
>
> Who1: 1964-1978
> Who2: 1979-1988
> Who3: 1989-1997
> Who4: 1999-2002
> Who5: 2002-present
>
> BTW, if you're gritting your teeth, maybe it's time to bail.
Might need some sub-variations in there, Who 3.1 and so on....
TWCrelic
DGDevin
news:h5Xkg.34939$mF2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> bria...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> I'm gonna suck it up, wait a few months and till then be glad that the
> band I chose to get behind 40 years ago is still doin' it.
Quotation of the Week.
Slip Kid
...I hope that's good...
Face it, Brian does a helluva job giving us a touchstone to the past &
if ya travel Usenet that's all the other groups have:
A Past.
Jeeze, the bitchin' didn't start when Keith died so I must have built a
tolerance by the time we lost him.
We were prolly OK up till Who's Next (not totally, though!) &
then....Quad wasn't __________ & By Numbers wasn't ____________ ....
Yep.
The band has fans as hard on 'em as the very people who don't
appreciate what we do?
If anyone has even contemplated the dreaded 'announcement' & is OK with it?
Fine.
I can't force my happiness on anyone.
I'm 51 and The Who might outlive me.
I hope they do.
I dread the 'announcement'.
Michael
DGDevin
>> Quotation of the Week.
>
> ...I hope that's good...
Yup.
> Face it, Brian does a helluva job giving us a touchstone to the past & if
> ya travel Usenet that's all the other groups have:
> A Past.
Yeah, what wouldn't Led Zep fans give to still have a working band to cry
about? I'm still amazed that in the 21st century I've still been able to
see The Who and the Stones year after year, it's amazing. As for the past,
I just found a ticket stub from a Who show I saw in '76, incredible.
Dang I wish I was at Leeds right now, can't wait for the tour to get here.
Will
If you are thinking that, maybe you haven't watched ITA. She is a disaster
and a complete irritant who doesn't have a clue about Pete's own musical
history. Tommy was NOT the band's first rock opera, lol. Can we all say
"Sharon Osbourne?" lol
> The dispatches from Rabbit didn't sound like a band in ruin. And even
> though he's but one voice (and not even in possession of birth-right Who
> credentials!!!) I'm not ready to make the leap and say "The Who is dead,
> Rachel done did 'em in."
> When Pete rings me up I'll jump at the chance to tell him why/what a fan
> likes.
>
Rabbit sounded completely hammered in his last blog. I wouldn't take the
opinion of a drunken Texan as the gospel.
Will
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
More like The What 3.0 or something like that....
RMRB
Yoko Ono anyone?
>
>
Umm Yoko played a small part in breaking up the Beatles, although she
got too much shit. Pressure and the media broke the Beatles more than
anything, and drugs didn't help. Although psychedelics also helped
contribute to the best albums ever. Those "records" after 65 were
basically dosed :<). Still she should not have been in the recording
sessions with the band. That was way too much IMHO. The shots with the
3 Beatles, and then John and Yoko were just weird. Even John seems a
bit awkward with it. The story of Paul glaring at her during the line
"Get Back to where you once belonged" in the studio is classic. That
said, the big 3 were too brilliant not too split, and go their different
directions for a while. If that freak hadn't junked Lennon, they would
have played again to a million people at some festival for a billion
dollars. Heck, the remaining 3 did get together for Real love and those
other recordings at whosoever house it was (George's?). I have the DVD,
funny shit. George is a mellow cat, and Ringo is very mellow and laid
back. What a good guy he seems to be.
As for Rachel, we are damn lucky she is Pete's girl. Because of her he
is playing more IMHO. She has helped inspire Pete to carry on The Who,
and she hasn't even pressured him to marry her. She's any man's dream,
low maintenance, she just loves Pete, but she's hardly in the way. Sans
the other 2 lads, Roger has obviously been the key with his Who
enthusiasm, and willingness to defer partly to Pete, but she has played
a part. Who cares if she has a tune. Moon and John are gone, this is
Pete and Roger and friends now. And because of those two, it's still
the best around. Pete's guitar playing is so good for a man his age,
it's scary. I'm so psyched for Liverpool.
ps Remember how important she was in 2003, where she saved him until he
could be proven innocent, and then of course the great 2004 Roger and
Pete London shows where even though Roger lost his voice for a bit 3rd
night, they sounded incredible, as Pete was undoubtedly touched by the
fan support. The second night at that club is as good as any show I
have seen in the last 5 years, and better that Phish post hiatus,
Claypool, Oysterhead, Govt. Mule with Woody, Sanatana, Maceo, and on
par with Phish 97-98, Page/Plant/Crowes, Pearl Jam, The Stones, and pre
95 Dead, not quite 88-90 Dead, 2002 English Who shows ending at RAH,
Watford, or 98 Stones.
I remember looking into his eyes during the Birdman during Sparks at
that second night, and their was joy and relief in those eyes. It still
gives me a chill to know he was happy. Yes I am a late Who fan having
been just a kid in the 70's, but I've seen two Albert Hall years,
including John's last shows, and I've been to 15 total. I've seen not
many, but Electric Who is rare, unless you toured in the mid 70's.
Shoreline 2004 was boring though.
Lets hope tix are easy as 2004, and not over $200 for the best (1st 5
rows, meaning you can actually get them without scalper getting
everything). 2003 could have been the end, as the poor guy was accused
of the worst thing possible, but to his credit, they found nothing,
NOTHING on billions of MB's on ALL his computers. Hell, The Bomb letter
had already sold me, as did the fact he had contacted those assholes at
The Watch who initially denied talking to him. What idiots they were,
as they could of ended it all instantly. But it has been over with,
unless jerks like me bring it up, sorry Pete. I did buy a Pete's
innocent t-shirt. :<)
There's Jimmy Page (insanely fast, heavy, sick). There's Sanatana
(Latin crystal clear notes). There's Hendrix (Hendrix). There's Duane
Allman (Blues). There's Van Halen (metal, speed). There's Garcia
(soul, picker). There's Pete (rhythm, power chords). Those 7 define
the spectrum of Rock N Roll playing, and each one is the master of his
style. I guess Keith (Riff genius) needs to be in there as a wild card.
Zappa as a technical genius. Clapton bores me, as every time I've
seen him, it's a sit down crowd, no energy. Yes the Rainbow concert
with Pete is amazing, as is his acoustic blues, but I still think overrated.
As for my generation, Warren, Trey, McCready, Ford from the Crowes,
Larry lalaonde-primus, Cobain was good, but more so for the songs. Oh
yah, Rage dude Tom Morello (spelling?) is ridiculous. Sorry, Oasis and
Radiohead don't do it for me. Just my opinion. Oasis is good, but
compared to say a Phish 95 NYE Madison Square Garden throw down, The
Weekapague, Sea and Sand out of New Years is as good as musicians get.
Remember this is my generation so save the Phish sucks comments, cause
you have not seen them in their prime at MSG, Gorge, Red Rocks, The
Front at UVM. I have. I've also seen hundreds of classic Dead, Stones,
Page, Who, as well as the younger Pearl Jam, Primus, Rage. Only missed
Nirvana. More than any clown from Rolling Stone.
ps The webcast stuff for Roger and Pete and friends is AWESOME. 99
cents. Jagger would charge $100.
RMRB
bria...@bellsouth.net
That's where I first notice the bitching really starting among Who fans was
over ticket prices to the U.K. Who's Next shows (5 pounds a ticket?
Capitalist swine!) It's never really stopped since (1975-6: What aren't they
playing more than one song from Quadrophenia?). By 1978 Who fans were
already so notorious as never-satisfied bitchers that Jeff Stein mentioned
how he felt no one would be satisfied with his final cut of The Kids Are
Alright. Turned out the fans weren't what he should have been worried about,
but that's another story...
Will
"RMRB" <no@no> wrote in message news:4494F141.9010004@no...
>
> Yoko Ono anyone?
>>
>>
>
>
> As for Rachel, we are damn lucky she is Pete's girl. Because of her he is
> playing more IMHO. She has helped inspire Pete to carry on The Who, and
> she hasn't even pressured him to marry her. She's any man's dream, low
> maintenance, she just loves Pete, but she's hardly in the way. >
Ummm, that's your opinion ;-) She's certainly not my dream girl, that's for
sure. Her voice alone goes right through me like fingernails scraping a
chalkboard, lol. But if she makes Pete happy then good for him.
Slip Kid
I tend to ignore "off stage, out of the studio".
If it's not music[al]?
None of my bidness.
I'm interested in The Who as musicians, I don't know if I'd be aware of
any personal junk by listening to what they "do".
>> The dispatches from Rabbit didn't sound like a band in ruin. And even
>> though he's but one voice (and not even in possession of birth-right Who
>> credentials!!!) I'm not ready to make the leap and say "The Who is dead,
>> Rachel done did 'em in."
>> When Pete rings me up I'll jump at the chance to tell him why/what a fan
>> likes.
>>
>
> Rabbit sounded completely hammered in his last blog. I wouldn't take the
> opinion of a drunken Texan as the gospel.
I wrote: "The dispatches from Rabbit didn't sound like a band in ruin."
Sober of not, I took his impressions at face value.
Then there was Leeds?
Or, name the band which would have "closed" that show and not left the
crowd wanting...
..for the opening act.
Sorry, Rachel is out of bounds fer my negative comments.
>> Fer mate advisin'...not me!
>>
>> Shit, he didn't need me to find Rachel & I'd not want the job to find the
>> mate to please him.
>>
>> I'm gonna suck it up, wait a few months and till then be glad that the
>> band I chose to get behind 40 years ago is still doin' it.
>>
>> Not only better than bands that were here and buckled.
>>
>> Gimme a break:
>> If The Who (w/or w/out a #) got on stage tonite?
>> If I wuz a band I'd prolly defer and let them have the stage last.
>> Nah, The Who is still not a band you would wish to follow.
>> The Who would be getting the call for an encore..not you.
>>
>>
>> Michael
Michael
Will
Unfortunately, it's difficult to ignore "off stage, out of the studio"
anymore, with ITA. I watched the show last week where the band premiered
about 7 mins of Wire and Glass. The other 90 mins was "off stage, out of the
studio." Most of it was useless chattering. Even Pete mentioned how bored he
was.
>>> The dispatches from Rabbit didn't sound like a band in ruin. And even
>>> though he's but one voice (and not even in possession of birth-right Who
>>> credentials!!!) I'm not ready to make the leap and say "The Who is dead,
>>> Rachel done did 'em in."
>>> When Pete rings me up I'll jump at the chance to tell him why/what a fan
>>> likes.
>>>
>>
>> Rabbit sounded completely hammered in his last blog. I wouldn't take the
>> opinion of a drunken Texan as the gospel.
>
> I wrote: "The dispatches from Rabbit didn't sound like a band in ruin."
> Sober of not, I took his impressions at face value.
>
> Then there was Leeds?
> Or, name the band which would have "closed" that show and not left the
> crowd wanting...
> ..for the opening act.
>
For me personally, none. But other music fans often cite U2, Springsteen,
the Stones, to name a few.
> Sorry, Rachel is out of bounds fer my negative comments.
>
She's injected herself into the fray, so she's fair game. I found it amusing
that she mentioned the fact that "some hard core Who fans" don't like her.
Now there's a shock, lol.
Slip Kid
>> We were prolly OK up till Who's Next (not totally, though!)
>
> That's where I first notice the bitching really starting among Who fans was
> over ticket prices to the U.K. Who's Next shows (5 pounds a ticket?
> Capitalist swine!)
& they were probably still in the red?
> It's never really stopped since (1975-6: What aren't they
> playing more than one song from Quadrophenia?).
One must account for how many people "didn't get" Quad 'at the time?'
Plus 'fanss' were already bitchin' during "that" tour about "it's all
Quad" (so they began shaving tunes as they went along).
Granted, there was a great lead time between the release & the tour...I
spent every available minute with it.
> By 1978 Who fans were
> already so notorious as never-satisfied bitchers that Jeff Stein mentioned
> how he felt no one would be satisfied with his final cut of The Kids Are
> Alright. Turned out the fans weren't what he should have been worried about,
> but that's another story...
Well, Pete wasn't careful about preserving much (at least for long).
I lieu of TKAA I'd have preferred a good film of a show from the Quad tour.
Shit, 1973? I'm beginning to get over 33 years ago...
Again, kudos for maintaining their legacy.
At least you'll be in business writing about "Forty years ago today".
Um, big:
_MUSIC NEWS_
======
Better than writing:
"Forty years ago today there was this giant 64th birthday celebration...."
Uh-huh...
Michael
Slip Kid
> "Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
>>>> Regarding the obvioous:
>>>> We should all be so lucky to find someone like Rachel. If she has Pete
>>>> jazzed, I'm thinkin' she's no slouch.
>>> If you are thinking that, maybe you haven't watched ITA. She is a
>>> disaster and a complete irritant who doesn't have a clue about Pete's own
>>> musical history. Tommy was NOT the band's first rock opera, lol. Can we
>>> all say "Sharon Osbourne?" lol
>> I tend to ignore "off stage, out of the studio".
>> If it's not music[al]?
>> None of my bidness.
>> I'm interested in The Who as musicians, I don't know if I'd be aware of
>> any personal junk by listening to what they "do".
>>
>
> Unfortunately, it's difficult to ignore "off stage, out of the studio"
> anymore, with ITA.
One has a choice:
If one can't discriminate the "of stage, out of the studio" (By that I
mean music on a stage or onna disc?) from everything on ITA or elsewhere?
It my not be healthy to consume anything but the "music".
Yeah, I choose to not read the tabloids and consider reviews at best a
subjective view of the writer and at worst ax grinding.
No, I don't believe my music experience hasn't suffered.
I err on the side of caution & don't seem to have crossed too much
"music" off my list with my discretion.
I don't know if I miss any music with my attitude.
> I watched the show last week where the band premiered
> about 7 mins of Wire and Glass. The other 90 mins was "off stage, out of the
> studio." Most of it was useless chattering. Even Pete mentioned how bored he
> was.
Yep, 'that 90 minutes' would qualify as "not on my list".
If I lost by not weighing that in my judgment of the band...Oops!
>>> Rabbit sounded completely hammered in his last blog. I wouldn't take the
>>> opinion of a drunken Texan as the gospel.
>> I wrote: "The dispatches from Rabbit didn't sound like a band in ruin."
>> Sober of not, I took his impressions at face value.
>>
>> Then there was Leeds?
>> Or, name the band which would have "closed" that show and not left the
>> crowd wanting...
>> ..for the opening act.
> For me personally, none. But other music fans often cite U2, Springsteen,
> the Stones, to name a few.
All can put on a great show and all three would know that they were
asking for trouble:
I'd not 'dare The Who' to go first and think I could predict the
'standard' they'd set.
It would be an interesting "battle of the bands".
The three you mentioned are fair game and I respect them.
Let all four have a shot and see who knocks yer socks off - - head to head?
I thing the three would be asking for trouble.
>> Sorry, Rachel is out of bounds fer my negative comments.
>>
>
> She's injected herself into the fray, so she's fair game.
My perception is Pete is proud to include her. I have enough respect
for Pete that regarding his music he is making "choices". I'd be
reluctant to conclude he's being manipulated and any injecting is his.
> I found it amusing
> that she mentioned the fact that "some hard core Who fans" don't like her.
I find that candid.
If she "claimed" the opposite ("Everyone loves me.")? Wot, that?!
> Now there's a shock, lol.
Shocking that a person doesn't demand or need the approval of "some hard
core fans"?
Rachel knows where she stands & fan does mean 'fanatic.
She diffused any assumption: She isn't competing for fan affection. If
Pete and the gang think she has something (musical) to offer?
They realize the risk more than I & after 40 years I'd be surprised if
Pete didn't have his priorities straight.
See, I find it difficult to 'insult' her or his judgment of her and not
insult him. So far, I'm not prepared reproach him.
I'd hope Who fans are above targeting the mates (ex-mates) of the band.
I see that as most unflattering behavior. With some groups it's
developed into a clinical obsession.
It's pretty fuckin' weird (no names of other bands or their 'others')
and I thought it refreshing to see Who fans not give a shit about
anything but the music.
Michael
ldnayman
with numerous bass players and drummers coming and going, so what's the
difference?
DGDevin wrote:
> Well said.
>
> It is what is, we can like it or hate it but that's the way it is going to
> happen. The original Who died with Keith Moon, everything that has come
> after that was a lesser thing, still worthwhile to be sure, but the glory
> days are long gone and nothing we say or do will bring them back. If Rachel
> is a big part of why Pete is back at work, well good for her, and if she
> gets to be part of the show, well I guess I can live with that. I've been
> listening to this band since I was a kid, it's been thirty years since I
> first saw them live, I'm not about to dump them now just because Pete wants
DGDevin
news:QQclg.16765$gv2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> We were prolly OK up till Who's Next (not totally, though!)
>
> That's where I first notice the bitching really starting among Who fans
> was over ticket prices to the U.K. Who's Next shows (5 pounds a ticket?
> Capitalist swine!)
I just found a ticket stub from a 1976 show, the price is $8.50 which might
have been the door price with advance tickets a dollar cheaper. It was
probably a lot of money to me back then, but today's prices have far
outstripped inflation, I was reading an article recently that pointed out
ticket prices increased at several times the rate of inflation through the
90s.
> It's never really stopped since (1975-6: What aren't they playing more
> than one song from Quadrophenia?). By 1978 Who fans were already so
> notorious as never-satisfied bitchers that Jeff Stein mentioned how he
> felt no one would be satisfied with his final cut of The Kids Are Alright.
> Turned out the fans weren't what he should have been worried about, but
> that's another story...
And how many band's have fans who think it's part of the fun to get into the
front row and bellow abuse at the band all night?
Will
> Will wrote:
>> "Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
>
>>>>> Regarding the obvioous:
>>>>> We should all be so lucky to find someone like Rachel. If she has Pete
>>>>> jazzed, I'm thinkin' she's no slouch.
>
>>>> If you are thinking that, maybe you haven't watched ITA. She is a
>>>> disaster and a complete irritant who doesn't have a clue about Pete's
>>>> own musical history. Tommy was NOT the band's first rock opera, lol.
>>>> Can we all say "Sharon Osbourne?" lol
>>> I tend to ignore "off stage, out of the studio".
>>> If it's not music[al]?
>>> None of my bidness.
>>> I'm interested in The Who as musicians, I don't know if I'd be aware of
>>> any personal junk by listening to what they "do".
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's difficult to ignore "off stage, out of the studio"
>> anymore, with ITA.
>
> One has a choice:
> If one can't discriminate the "of stage, out of the studio" (By that I
> mean music on a stage or onna disc?) from everything on ITA or elsewhere?
> It my not be healthy to consume anything but the "music".
>
You can't discriminate because you don't know when Pete or Simon or someone
else of any significance will come on and play. Instead, I had to suffer
through the useless chattering about fashion and other superficial talk to
watch 7 mins. of a rehearsal. I consumed Who music only for years before ITA
came online and I'm doing just fine ;-)
> Yeah, I choose to not read the tabloids and consider reviews at best a
> subjective view of the writer and at worst ax grinding.
> No, I don't believe my music experience hasn't suffered.
> I err on the side of caution & don't seem to have crossed too much "music"
> off my list with my discretion.
> I don't know if I miss any music with my attitude.
>
>> I watched the show last week where the band premiered about 7 mins of
>> Wire and Glass. The other 90 mins was "off stage, out of the studio."
>> Most of it was useless chattering. Even Pete mentioned how bored he was.
>
> Yep, 'that 90 minutes' would qualify as "not on my list".>
Amen. Pete walked out of the room, complaining about how bored he was.
I have a lot of respect for Pete and his ability as a guitarist/songwriter.
His choice in women is another thing entirely. But again, that's his deal.
If he's happy, good for him. Just because Pete may be proud of her doesn't
mean people have to like her. I know quite a few other Who fans who feel the
same way.
>> I found it amusing that she mentioned the fact that "some hard core Who
>> fans" don't like her.
>
> I find that candid.>
And right on the mark, lol.
> If she "claimed" the opposite ("Everyone loves me.")? Wot, that?!
>
>> Now there's a shock, lol.
>
> Shocking that a person doesn't demand or need the approval of "some hard
> core fans"?
> Rachel knows where she stands & fan does mean 'fanatic.
> She diffused any assumption: She isn't competing for fan affection. If
> Pete and the gang think she has something (musical) to offer?
> They realize the risk more than I & after 40 years I'd be surprised if
> Pete didn't have his priorities straight.
>
> See, I find it difficult to 'insult' her or his judgment of her and not
> insult him. So far, I'm not prepared reproach him.
>
I don't think I'm insulting her. I just find the ITA sessions pretty tacky,
overall. I'm a Who fan, not a Rachel Fuller fan. Her voice is ok, and her
songwriting ability seems pretty good. But she is nothing special, IMHO. But
that's Pete's deal, and I wish him the best of luck with her.
DGDevin
news:1150648951.4...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I agree. The "who" is basically a revolving door band at this point,
> with numerous bass players and drummers coming and going, so what's the
> difference?
Let's see, the current drummer has been there for ten years or so, and
they've had two bass players in forty years (unless you count one charity
gig), some revolving door. At what point did you decide to specialize in
being factually-challenged?
DGDevin
She's way better-looking than Yoko, and she has a decent singing voice too,
not Aretha-grade, but tolerable. And if it's true that Pete has been
re-energized by her and motivated to work with The Who again, then the Yoko
label really doesn't fit. Listening to her and Mikey chatter mindlessly
does tend to wear thing pretty fast however.
Will
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
to Yoko, lol. If I hear Mikey utter "beeeeauuutiful" one more time I'm gonna
puke, lol.
RMRB
I think it's not made to be too serious. Mikey is there to keep it loose
and accessible. I mainly watch cause I love The Who, but I get a kick
out of Rachel and Mikey. It's reminds me a bit of Wayne's world.
It's free for God sake, and 99 cents for The Who is awesome. No other
bands do this. And how
easy is it to do. Other people are just greedy, the industry not the
musicians. Take it for what it is, a chance to show Pete is just like us.
Slip Kid
> "Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
> news:Kdflg.37901$mF2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Will wrote:
>>> "Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
>>> Unfortunately, it's difficult to ignore "off stage, out of the studio"
>>> anymore, with ITA.
>> One has a choice:
>> If one can't discriminate the "of stage, out of the studio" (By that I
>> mean music on a stage or onna disc?) from everything on ITA or elsewhere?
>> It my not be healthy to consume anything but the "music".
>>
>
> You can't discriminate because you don't know when Pete or Simon or someone
> else of any significance will come on and play. Instead, I had to suffer
> through the useless chattering about fashion and other superficial talk to
> watch 7 mins. of a rehearsal. I consumed Who music only for years before ITA
> came online and I'm doing just fine ;-)
First, I'm glad you're taking my 'finger shaking' in good spirit.
I've seen fans get out of control & lose focus on the music at the
expense of some (I consider) peering into the private zone of performers.
So!
I doubt you're doing that & think some of the 'promotional' efforts
might lead one down the path (you went for The Who[period]) where you
ended up with 90 minutes of "wasting your time(?)".
>> Yeah, I choose to not read the tabloids and consider reviews at best a
>> subjective view of the writer and at worst ax grinding.
>> No, I don't believe my music experience hasn't suffered.
>> I err on the side of caution & don't seem to have crossed too much "music"
>> off my list with my discretion.
>> I don't know if I miss any music with my attitude.
>>
>>> I watched the show last week where the band premiered about 7 mins of
>>> Wire and Glass. The other 90 mins was "off stage, out of the studio."
>>> Most of it was useless chattering. Even Pete mentioned how bored he was.
>> Yep, 'that 90 minutes' would qualify as "not on my list".>
>
> Amen. Pete walked out of the room, complaining about how bored he was.
It's how I approached much of that which swirled about The Who forever?
They could be on a tour and between dates an interview or incident could
have me freaked out about a show I wuz gonna see in a days.
It wasn't worth the anxiety! I'd go, they'd show up and the 'crisis'
wasn't worth considering.
Getting into the studio and getting something down turned a corner &
(with what is left) showed me:
1. Pete is willing stick his neck out for a release & new material is a
bigger risk than anyone can imagine.
2. When it's down to '1'...um, there will be no Who? Pete and Roger
can't do nuttin' 'about that. But the one left standing might regret if
they quit while two could still pull it off.
So, the lead up to Leeds musta been all the typical pre-tour bull w/the
xtra (2 deaths, no release in 24 years..and on and on) bull smack dab in
the info age.
>> My perception is Pete is proud to include her. I have enough respect for
>> Pete that regarding his music he is making "choices". I'd be reluctant to
>> conclude he's being manipulated and any injecting is his.
>>
>
> I have a lot of respect for Pete and his ability as a guitarist/songwriter.
We both probably find 'respect' a word lacking to describe is
talent/ability? So, I allow that complex package to be beyond my
ability to figure out. His make-up has been deadly at times so I'm glad
he's alive!
> His choice in women is another thing entirely. But again, that's his deal.
Ah, a luxury which both genders both reap the benefits and suffer the
consequences. I'd be no more concerned if it was a female and she was
my surgeon. So long as she is wielding the scalpel I don't care she and
her partner do outside of the OR.
> If he's happy, good for him. Just because Pete may be proud of her doesn't
> mean people have to like her. I know quite a few other Who fans who feel the
> same way.
No, one doesn't have to like her. I've seen partner's of performers
presumed guilty & I've yet to form a negative judgment of Rachel. I
s'pose I'm glad she's musical? If not of Pete's era music is too
important for him for her to not have that quality. I don't sense that
she's using him or he's in a "Pygmalion" thing.
>>> I found it amusing that she mentioned the fact that "some hard core Who
>>> fans" don't like her.
>> I find that candid.>
>
> And right on the mark, lol.
For now, I like her. As I wrote earlier, I'd not want to be in charge
of finding him a women...If she was my choice (for him) I breath a sigh
of relief that approved. Yeah, time will tell but I don't sense a
'bimbo-after his cash/fame'. That's why her remark about The Who fans
suggested she was OK with herself and didn't need "our approval".
Wouldn't you be more suspect if she 'pretended' to have inherited some
sort of endearment?
>> See, I find it difficult to 'insult' her or his judgment of her and not
>> insult him. So far, I'm not prepared reproach him.
>>
>
> I don't think I'm insulting her. I just find the ITA sessions pretty tacky,
> overall. I'm a Who fan, not a Rachel Fuller fan.
In that regard it could be argued that the fans were 'used' (for a bit
of cross-promotion)? Shit, I'd do the same for my goil if I was Pete.
He didn't can Roger & go folk...
Well, now you know the deal so ITA won't surprise you for the lack of
pure Who content.
> Her voice is ok, and her
> songwriting ability seems pretty good. But she is nothing special, IMHO.
And I can name a dozen acts with less appeal that are over-hyped beyond
her. I think he's had a light touch. I've seen less of her than some
less talented people that labels are ramming down my throat.
It's pretty much a mom 'n' pop operation and outside the WWW she pretty
scarce in the states. Yeah, I'd by a tic. to her show if she played my
town.
I've bought worse discs in the last year from acts which were truly
oversold (IMHO!).
> But
> that's Pete's deal, and I wish him the best of luck with her.
Good. I didn't think you were out to get her! Now that "the show is
on" I think we'll be OK.
Michael
David Bourke
> > As for Rachel, we are damn lucky she is Pete's girl. Because of her he
is
> > playing more IMHO. She has helped inspire Pete to carry on The Who, and
> > she hasn't even pressured him to marry her. She's any man's dream, low
> > maintenance, she just loves Pete, but she's hardly in the way. >
> Ummm, that's your opinion ;-) She's certainly not my dream girl, that's
for
> sure.
Or mine...
http://tinyurl.com/lo7mn
db
Slip Kid
> <bria...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:QQclg.16765$gv2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>>> We were prolly OK up till Who's Next (not totally, though!)
>> That's where I first notice the bitching really starting among Who fans
>> was over ticket prices to the U.K. Who's Next shows (5 pounds a ticket?
>> Capitalist swine!)
>
> I just found a ticket stub from a 1976 show, the price is $8.50 which might
> have been the door price with advance tickets a dollar cheaper.
In '73 the International Amphitheater (Chicago) was $8.50. I thought it
was a steal. I was earning less than $2 an hour.
> It was
> probably a lot of money to me back then, but today's prices have far
> outstripped inflation, I was reading an article recently that pointed out
> ticket prices increased at several times the rate of inflation through the
> 90s.
Yep - They tripled in before '80.
My tic. above was FR for four hours work? No many teens get that deal
today for a top artist.
They could have gotten double that, easy. It was about the price of a
couple albums. That was the Quad tour & I paid about as much for the
discs. (With that not to thin book inside!)
>> It's never really stopped since (1975-6: What aren't they playing more
>> than one song from Quadrophenia?). By 1978 Who fans were already so
>> notorious as never-satisfied bitchers that Jeff Stein mentioned how he
>> felt no one would be satisfied with his final cut of The Kids Are Alright.
>> Turned out the fans weren't what he should have been worried about, but
>> that's another story...
>
> And how many band's have fans who think it's part of the fun to get into the
> front row and bellow abuse at the band all night?
Up front was not only a well regarded privilege when I've seen The Who?
It's prolly not wise to act up.
Michael
Bob Gill
> I have a good memory except it doesn't go back very far and sometimes
> remembers stuff that didn't happen, but other than that it's great.
Not exactly a Who topic, but Mark Twain wrote something similar to this when
he was about 70, something I really like. Without looking it up, I'll
paraphrase it: "I used to be able to remember anything, whether it happened or
not; but my memory has been declining lately, and soon I will be able to
remember only the latter."
-- Bob G.
Bob Gill
> I just found a ticket stub from a 1976 show, the price is $8.50 which might
> have been the door price with advance tickets a dollar cheaper. It was
> probably a lot of money to me back then,
It was pretty standard for major acts, though. As I recall, the Stones cost me
$9 in 1975, and Paul McCartney cost the same, or just about, in 1976. Oh, and I
think Bob Dylan also cost $9 in 1974. And to confirm your point about how ticket
prices have skyrocketed far quicker than other comparable costs, $9 at that time
was a bit less than twice what it cost to buy an album (I think the standard
prices were about $5.99). As a rough figure, today a ticket to see these guys
(aside from Dylan, who still has ticket prices in double digits) costs what _ 20
or 30 times as much as an album?
-- Bob G.
ldnayman
don't you tell me all of the drummers and bass players the "who" have
played with since 1982? And yes, I'm counting "charity gigs," LIVE 8,
etc.
Once again, DG just loves an "Exception."
Oh yeah, the Who have only had 1 bass player since John Died. Except
that guy they played with at Live 8, and that guy who played on their
crappy new songs in 2004, because, you know, that doesn't count for
some reason. Because DG who knows everything says it doesn't count. And
they've only had 2 drummers since Kieth died! Except that guy at Live
8. And that DRUM MACHINE on saturday night, and simon phillips, and
that other guy...but it doesn't count. Because DG says so. Yup, none
of this counts. No revolving door there, no sir.
Besides, I was agreeing with you. Since the Who will pretty much play
with anybody, what's the big deal about Pete's brother or his
girlfriend now being part of the band? Just can't win for losing with
DG.
Brodieman
wrote:
I agree, I find her quite grating. I cannot watch the Attic because of
her and that Cuthbert fellow.
Will
"Brodieman" <brod...@brodieman.com> wrote in message
news:tcdd929r5favm67gf...@4ax.com...
Her comedy routine wore out long ago for me. It was even worse yesterday,
having Tracey Ulman there. OMG, two women with grating voices, it was rough.
I don't know what Cuthbert's connection is, other than creating some lame
animation, smoking 20 cigarettes and yelling "beeeauuutiiiifulllll" after
every song.
Brodieman
wrote:
Thirty years ago he would have got a Les Paul smashed in his
collarbone...
DGDevin
> You don't count very well DG. Since you are the citation-master, why
> don't you tell me all of the drummers and bass players the "who" have
> played with since 1982? And yes, I'm counting "charity gigs," LIVE 8,
> etc.
> Once again, DG just loves an "Exception."
>
> Oh yeah, the Who have only had 1 bass player since John Died. Except
> that guy they played with at Live 8, and that guy who played on their
> crappy new songs in 2004, because, you know, that doesn't count for
> some reason. Because DG who knows everything says it doesn't count. And
> they've only had 2 drummers since Kieth died! Except that guy at Live
> 8. And that DRUM MACHINE on saturday night, and simon phillips, and
> that other guy...but it doesn't count. Because DG says so. Yup, none
> of this counts. No revolving door there, no sir.
>
> Besides, I was agreeing with you. Since the Who will pretty much play
> with anybody, what's the big deal about Pete's brother or his
> girlfriend now being part of the band? Just can't win for losing with
> DG.
What part of this are you having trouble understanding ldnayman? I laid it
out as simply as possible for you, but you're still either not able to grasp
it or you're intentionally distorting what I posted to further your childish
argument, I suspect the latter as that's typical of your style, you're not
the most honest person around, are you.
Jagger and Richards played with Letterman's band at the Concert for New York
(since you figure a one-of charity gig counts for so much), the Stones have
had session players on almost every album they've ever done, they've gone
through half a dozen keyboard players over the years and as many backing
singers and brass section members, they're on their second bass player and
fourth guitarist, and so on, so are you now going to claim the Stones are a
"revolving door" band? Why not, that would make as much sense as what
you're saying about The Who.
I've yet to see you make a positive contribution of any sort, you bitch and
sneer about The Who every chance you get and then squeal when your ignorance
and/or dishonesty is pointed out. Disagreement is one thing, there are lots
of folks here who have forgotten more about The Who than I'll ever know and
from time to time some of them have expressed their disagreement like
grownups, as opposed to your childish ranting. And I remain baffled as to
why anyone who appears to loathe The Who so deeply bothers to come to a Who
forum, unless of course bitching and sneering is what you're really all
about.
Whatever, your fifteen minutes are up dude, I haven't used a killfile in
this group since the dark days of Kendall, but in your case it's justified.
It would be different if you had something of value to contribute that would
balance the childishly negative stuff, but like I said, that's *all* you
seem to have. So rant away if you please, I'll no longer see it which will
spare the group my response to your foolishness as well, a win-win situation
surely. Adios ldnayman, good luck with growing up a little at some point. .
. .
DGDevin
news:44960C65...@erols.com...
> It was pretty standard for major acts, though. As I recall, the Stones
> cost me
> $9 in 1975, and Paul McCartney cost the same, or just about, in 1976. Oh,
> and I
> think Bob Dylan also cost $9 in 1974. And to confirm your point about how
> ticket
> prices have skyrocketed far quicker than other comparable costs, $9 at
> that time
> was a bit less than twice what it cost to buy an album (I think the
> standard
> prices were about $5.99). As a rough figure, today a ticket to see these
> guys
> (aside from Dylan, who still has ticket prices in double digits) costs
> what _ 20
> or 30 times as much as an album?
>
> -- Bob G.
Yeah, somebody in another forum did the math awhile back and pointed out
that if album prices had increased the same way ticket prices had a CD could
cost hundreds of bucks. If memory serves it was the Eagles back in the 90s
who kicked open the door and demonstated that lots of people were willing to
pay way more than previously believed, and then Clear Channel got into the
concert business and actively encouraged bands to raise prices as high as
the market would bear. There's been a bit of a backlash in the past year or
two with reduced concert attendance, but the Stones don't seem to have
trouble filling stadiums with prices from $60 to $450, so it seems like a
few acts can still get away with it.
ldnayman
Since the Who are supposedly touring with some big multimedia, multi
screen stage set this time around, does that mean they are pandering to
their audience? I mean, it isn't wearing knee-pads, but surely this is
the kind of non-musical enterprise that you would slam the stones for
(as if the Who didn't invent the rock n roll laser?)
One again, you are a big know it all who always demands citations and
evidence without providing any of your own, and fails to see the
double-standard to which he holds many of his rock and roll dinasours.
I will enjoy teeing off on your horseshit posts without having to wade
through your endless windbag rebuttals.
And hey, you are a 50 year old man who spends all his time bickering
with newsgroup idiots. I guess one day maybe I'll be as grown up as
you.
DGDevin
>
> Not exactly a Who topic, but Mark Twain wrote something similar to this
> when
> he was about 70, something I really like. Without looking it up, I'll
> paraphrase it: "I used to be able to remember anything, whether it
> happened or
> not; but my memory has been declining lately, and soon I will be able to
> remember only the latter."
>
> -- Bob G.
As with so many things, Mr. Twain got it right. ;^)
DGDevin
> Forgot Neil Young, and Stills...
Also Jeff Beck, Peter Green and Johnny Winter. . . .
DGDevin
news:mumblegemmumblehutchmumb...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> Using an inflation conversion site (see below) - yup, it was.
> <http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/sahr.htm>
>
> $8.50 in '76 is about a dime short of $30. So that's why we didn't spend
> all of our small change going to shows! ;-)
The cheapest seats on the Stones' '99 tour were thirty bucks, that was up to
$60 for most shows on their current tour. Of course that puts you in the
second deck in a stadium, so you'll need bottled oxygen and binoculars.
Their top-priced tickets jumped from $300 in '02-03 to $450 this time, and
their shows are mostly sold-out.
> Pretty amazing, idn't it? I've just now "warmed" up to the idea that
> some talent out there *might* get $50 from me after charges. Needless to
> say I haven't seen The Who since '82 (NOT knocking those who have, I can
> just be *really* cheap) but I have seen a lot of jazz shows.
I'll pay more today for concert tickets than I could have imagined a few
years ago, but then it costs sixty bucks to refill my printer with ink, a
paperback can cost ten bucks, and the other day my wife bought me a
ninety-dollar shirt, so fifty bucks for concert tickets seems like a bargain
these days, amazing.
Will
Or a microphone bounced off his head.....
Ted Maloney
> You don't count very well DG. Since you are the citation-master, why
> don't you tell me all of the drummers and bass players the "who" have
> played with since 1982? And yes, I'm counting "charity gigs," LIVE 8,
> etc.
> Once again, DG just loves an "Exception."
>
> Oh yeah, the Who have only had 1 bass player since John Died. Except
> that guy they played with at Live 8, and that guy who played on their
> crappy new songs in 2004, because, you know, that doesn't count for
> some reason. Because DG who knows everything says it doesn't count. And
> they've only had 2 drummers since Kieth died! Except that guy at Live
> 8. And that DRUM MACHINE on saturday night, and simon phillips, and
> that other guy...but it doesn't count. Because DG says so. Yup, none
> of this counts. No revolving door there, no sir.
>
Great, now you finally understand.
Ted Maloney
> I gather that Rachel Fuller had a big role in convincing Pete to revive the
> Who and tour/record again. For that I am grateful. I bet Roger is too.
> Pete seems happy, centered, and in love. Good on him. He deserves a
> partner to share his life with. It's clear that Pete is helping Rachel's
> career with "In the Attic" and linking his website and blog activities
> with hers. The Who seems tucked amidst all this. This is the new reality
> and where Pete is at. He is, more than ever, in charge of The Who and its
> direction. Roger wants nothing to do with computers and websites, but
> Pete recognizes this is the present and future of music and is embracing
> the online universe. As far as Rachel Fuller songs and her musicians
> appearing on Who albums I don't know. If it's good and it works, great.
> The old "gang of four" Who is gone. The new Who family, like it or not,
> includes Pete's girlfriend and her circle. Music must change....
> -fraz
>
The Who are dead. Long live the Who!
(or The Who2, at least.)
