The Who To Tour In 2006!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The tour has been announced way too early.

We do know that Pete is not at all comfortable about touring again with Roger, Zak, Pino and Rabbit with no new tunes. Even if we don't get a new album in time (and we don't), there will still be a couple of new songs played on this tour. And to me that WILL feel only halfway there. I am one out of probably 10 people on the planet who would die for a new album with 12 brand new Townshend tracks sung by Roger (maybe one or two by Pete himself), and played with the current line-up (my favorite post-Moon). I'd love to see them play again as song as possible, but touring already in 2006? No, I don't support that.

I love Pete Townshend now more than I ever have, and most of all for his complete honesty and open relation to us (through his diaries and interviews). It takes a strong will for such a sensitive mind to have that ability. He's certainly not afraid of contradicting himself, and he's always questioning himself and his surroundings - all the while maturing.

He wrote a very interesting diary entry yesterday, where he stated that he was worried about his hearing again, and especially in a studio setting. Working with headphones is and has always been a pain to the system, and he makes some very understandable points throughout. Read it, and link it up to the current status. I feel Pete is under unfair pressure here.

Pete Townshend's Diary - 29 December 2005

Then please let me know if you agree with me that this tour is coming a year too early.

 

May I point out a very small detail to all those not happy about Pete and Roger touring the name "The WHO"..They are calling themselves "WHO2" these days. As i said, Small but it does make a difference.

 

Looks like Pete and Roger are on the cover of the new MOJO as the Who. How tiresome - I am on the verge of quitting buying MOJO if they don't move on from picking over the bones of the 60s dinosaurs - I'd rather see a cover story on Echo & The Bunnymen or anyone from the 80s whose career hasn't been dissected to death. How anyone could be interested in a tour from a band without two original members who hasn't put out a new album since 1982 or a good album since 1975 is beyond me.

 

Not acknowledge it??? Roger and Pete do acknowledge it in about every interview they give. And yes, Pete has said on several occasions they may well not refer to themselves as "The Who."

 

I would see 'em if they came our way. But the issue of the band's name doesn't concern me as much as Roger's voice. I couldn't get through the Boston DVD and the live triple CD because of the strain and phrasing (to compensate for some lack of range) I heard on some songs, and I heard the same at Live 8, the post 9/11 concert at Madison Square Garden and, to a lesser extent, at the Quadrophenia concert I saw in 1997. Anybody heard if his vocals are better?

BTW, my brother was blown away (and he's not a Who fan) by the 9/11 and live 8 performances. I have a feeling it was because of Pete's energy.

 

Sure. Pete should tour under his own name, but everybody knows that "The Who" is used for brand-name recognition. If Pete or Roger went out on their own, they would be doing small clubs. Which might be better than stadium shows anyway, but you can understand from their perspective that they would rather reach a bigger audience, and they have labored for many many years to build up their name. Integrity is fine, but you have to have an audience to play to for any of it to matter. What if Pete did Who songs as a solo act? People would complain that it wasn't the Who, and that he should stick to his solo material if Roger isn't singing. You can't win in these situations. He wrote the material, he led the band, so let him use the brand name, if he wishes, like David Gilmour uses Pink Floyd. It's not like the Beach Boys, where the creator isn't even involved anymore.

 

I filled out a "contact us" form at www.themusic.com and asked whether thay plan to do an "Encore" series for The Who tour in 2006. I just received this reply:

Hello David,

There is a distinct possibility that there will be another Who Encore Series this year, though no official announcement as of yet. Check back at www.themusic.com for Encore Series news. If you have not set up an account, you may do so and receive email announcements. Thanks for your interest!

Best regards,
Peele Wimberley

www.themusic.com

323.466.9694 ext.17

 

I agree with that, and it is Pete's brand. What else is he gonna do, sing in the shower? If he can still write new songs, I'm interested in hearing them performed.

 

But they toured with a heavy emphasis on the latest album in the old days. Who's Next in 1971-1972, Quad in 1973, and as mentioned Tommy in 1969-70. In 1975-1976 the "Greatest Hits" format started to take hold, with just a few (often just "Squeeze Box" + "However Much I Booze") played from By Numbers. This might have had as much to do with By Numbers not translating well to the Who live treatment (they also attempted "Slip Kid" and "Dreaming from the Waist") AND
them doing a mini-Tommy with the movie having just come out.

All post-Moon were "greatest hits" except the Tommy 1989 and Quad 1996 previously mentioned, but did anyone really want to hear a set heavy on Face Dances or It's Hard. Not me.

 

No, of course that wouldn't have worked. But Pete doesn't want to be just an oldies jukebox, and that's why I think they are working so carefully and deliberately on the new album. It needs to be really good if they are going to be anything other than nostalgia on the upcoming tour. Same was true for the Stones this last time around.

 

The Stones have made 8 or 9 studio albums since the Who last released a new studio album. No matter how good the new Who album is (if it ever gets made - I have my doubts) they are going to be touring as a nostalgia act.

 

I've said before that I think all of Pete's statements on this subject are just covering up for his inability to write new songs for the Who. Sorry to be cynical and I hope to be proved wrong, but IMO when artists take forever to record albums it's for one reason -- they don't have any ideas (see also the Eagles).

 

Do you think that about people like Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel, or even Kraftwerk? I don't. I admire people who do things at their own pace and don't force it. He has admitted that he finds it difficult.

The wait for the last Kraftwerk studio album was 17 years, but it is sublime!

 

Yeah, but are those 8 or 9 albums any good? I think they are mediocre. We'll just have to see what happens.

 

Up to and including "Undercover" is good, but the rest are somewhat forgettable IMO (Jaggers last two solo albums are really good)

I think Townshend said something about his failure as a songwriter (being unable to continue writing good material for the band) was the main reason for their demise.

 

There is no Yetti

 

I recall thinking how one song on Undercover (which one?) sounded like a direct lifting from "Eminence Front" from the last Who studio album that was released the year before. Similar guitar part as I recall.

Kinda nice how the bands used to could play off each other's work.

 

The issue isn't really whether or not the Stones' post-Emotional Rescue output is mediocre - that's another subject for another thread - but simply that the Stones have remained a working band for the past 25 years - they've put out many new albums since 1980, and played songs from those albums on tour. Can you imagine the scrutiny that A Bigger Bang would have received if it had been the first new Stones album in 25 years?

The Who have not put out a new album in almost 25 years, and when they have toured during that time, it has been 100% as a nostalgia act. They are under tremendous pressure if they do put out a new album, and I agree that Towsnhend seems to be suffering from writer's block, "Real Good Looking Boy" notwithstanding. Townshend's heart has not been in writing new Who material since 1975, arguably 1973, and I see no reason why that should change now. Really, there has been talk of a new Who album for far longer than Guns 'n' Roses have been threatening to release Chinese Democracy, but nothing ever comes of it. Throw in the fact that John and Keith are dead, and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

Well, maybe you're right, John. It comes down to whether Pete can write something for Roger's persona. I think maybe he'll manage to eek out one more record and that will be it for them. Personally, I like Pete's singing better than Roger's. Always have. I would be just as happy with more solo music from Pete, but he's stubborn and I think he's in the mode of trying to prove something at this stage, if only for himself. Then again maybe it is money, although I have a hard time sympathizing with these mega rock stars who sometimes piss away millions. I'm not saying Pete or Roger have done that - I don't know.

 

Update: Tour still on, despite rumors. Album progressing.
http://billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001956347

Townshend Reaffirms Who Album, Tour Plans
February 02, 2006, 11:00 AM ET
Jonathan Cohen, N.Y.

Pete Townshend took to his official Web site yesterday (Feb. 1) to squash rumors that the Who's planned 2006 tour might not get off the ground after all. "There will be a tour," he insisted. "We already have European festival dates slotted in June and July."

Townshend said the Who will then head to North America for a tour that will feature "three -- or even four -- legs" and run from September to December. "We go on to the rest of the world in 2007," he added.

Of perhaps most interest to observers is Townshend's claim that the Who's first new studio album since 1982's "It's Hard" will be released "sometime in the early summer. I know I've cried wolf a few times, but this time I have committed because I have about enough music for a new CD, and I'm still producing."

In a switch from previous comments to the contrary, Townshend said his girlfriend, singer/songwriter Rachel Fuller, will come along for the tour and stage her popular Internet show, "In the Attic," before each concert. "This will prevent me becoming bored," he said.

 

I would like to think Pete hasn't had writer's block, but then again, aside from two songs, and some demos on his site, there hasn't been much output from Pete since Psychoderelict.

Based on his comments, he appears to be trying to write for Roger's "persona", which is a mistake in my opinion. He'd be better off (IMO) just writing, and letting whatever happens happen. Free from the constraints of the Who, Pete has written some great material. I think White City is ridiculously underrated. And, Roger could've sung most of those songs.

 

Why is it if a fanstastic live act, like the Who (the shows recorded just before John died were exceptionally good....tight, rockin' and very entertaining) is considered a nostalgia act simply because they haven't released a new studio album since 1982? Set lists since 1989 have featured Pete's solo material, playing full versions of Tommy and Quadrophenia playing obscure 45's and b-sides....some extended jamming though the shows with Palladino are more tighly controlled for obvious reasons. I just don't see them as a nostalgia act...in any way. The reasons for not issuing studio albums since '82 are well documented. Pete has admitted writer's block, personal demons, difficulty coming up with material for Roger...the death of Keith Moon, the problems with Kenny Jones, the death of John Entwistle....successful solo careers....It's not as if Pete hasn't released material since 1982...he surely has, including 3 concept albums. Nostagia Act...not a chance....Ron

 

Because they haven't released a new studio album since 1982?

If you are touring playing only your old songs, you're a nostalgia act, however good you are.

 

According to Merriam Webster online, Nostalgia is defined as follows:

1 : the state of being homesick : HOMESICKNESS
2 : a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition; also : something that evokes nostalgia

Seems likes a tough call. It looks like its up to the individual whether something is nostalgic. And in this case, its up to the band members themselves too.

52 Year Old: "Wow, this is almost as good as that time I saw them in LA in 1976"
18 Year Old: "I never thought I'd see them live. These guys are better than Green Day."
Pete: "I hope the new stuff goes over well. Its as good as the old stuff".
Roger: "This reminds me of when I was 24 and used to perform bare-chested".
Pino: "I'm actually BETTER than Entwistle but these old farts will never notice. Good pay though".

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! A nostalgia act would play just the hits (the Who have staged shows around two landmark rock operas), play for less than an hour (the Who still play 2 - 2 1/2 hours per show) and just go through the motions...this is NOT how the Who play live. With all due respect, have you seen them live? Simply passing them off as a nostagia act, like the Beach Boys or countless oldies acts (not that you said that), is mere folly. Most active groups from their era, play VERY few songs from their most current CDs...the Stones did 2 or 3 a night....McCartney maybe 3....and few of them play songs from the last 10 or 15 years....it just doesn't happen. The difference is that Pete and Roger still care about the music....check out the Royal Albert Hall DVD if you haven't yet...they are still vital and rockin'. Along with Pink Floyd and a few others, the Who were the best group on last year's Live 8 show. I fail to see why touring behind a new album is the only thing that keeps a band from being considered a nostalgia act....Ron