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

The Who play their old songs from 30+ years ago. Their show is about the past. How else would you define a nostalgia act? I don't think it has anything to do with the length of the show, or how enthusiastically they play the songs.

 

I did in the beginning of my post....A nostalgia act to me would play just the hits...often in ridiculous medleys.... play 1 set, usually in an hour or less....and just perform them in a perfunctory manner. You know pay us the $$ so we can get the hell out of here. Case in point....during the early 80's I backed up Chuck Berry a few times. He reeked NOSTALGIA. On the other hand, playing with Roy Orbison was the exact opposite. This was pre-Wilburys and Mystery Girl....He played deep catalogue material, seemed to love the audience...he actually welcomed requests. Each song he put his heart and soul in. Chuck Berry demanded to be paid in advance and more than once skipped the gig after being paid, citing illness.....Neither man had a new album to plug...but the way they played, their interaction with an audience...Berry was the nostalgia act...Orbison still vital. That's my simplistic definition. Ron

 

Well obviously we differ....but old songs done well and with passion hardly fits my definition of nostalgia.

 

Nonetheless, you asked why the Who are perceived as a nostalgia act, and my answer is, because they no longer produce new music, they just tour playing their old songs. (Of course, they are slowly working on new material so maybe we can drop the nostalgia tag the next time they tour).

To me, an act becomes nostalgic when the majority of the audience is no longer interested in hearing their new material. Usually this is because the new material is no good, but even when it is, it seems like most artists just eventually get to a point where their shows are about the past. McCartney's and the Stones' shows are largely about nostalgia too. But I don't mean the phrase "nostalgia act" to diminish their performances in the way you're thinking.

Thechief123 makes (or implies) a good point, though, that if the performer is good, the audience can be in the moment with the songs again, particularly people who weren't there the first time around. You tend more to look at the shows as nostalgic from the outside.

 

When I saw Crosby, Stills & Nash in the late 80s, it wasn't nostalgic for me. It was new music as far as I was concerned. They did 2/3's old stuff (which was basically new to me), and some new stuff. Of course, most of the audience was on a nostalgia trip.

 

FWIW, I agree with both of you.

I do consider the Who a nostalgia in certain ways because they haven't put out an album 25 years (Pete solo about half that), and (for the most part) play the same warhorses over and over again. Plus, they aren't even the Who IMO. They are 2 members of a 4 member band. The other 2 members are dead, and they may be the most distinctive rhythm section in Rock N' Roll history. Also they broke up and reunited so many times I can't even count. The 1989 tour was a total cash cow IMO. Maybe it wasn't nostalgia, but it was pretty cheesy. 15 people on stage and Pete can't even play electric guitar. I feel bad for people who paid premium prices to see them on the 1982 thinking it was the last ever Who tour to see them out there 7 years later. When I saw them doing 1-900 ads on that tour I couldn't believe it. If the Pete of the LIVE AT LEEDS days saw it he probably would have puked. Anyway...

It's nice that Pete is writing again in order to justify going on the road, but whether or not the songs are worthy of "The Who" is another thing. Again, it's been 25 years or so since the last couple of Who albums and they weren't anywhere close to the bands best work, save for a couple of tunes IMO. I'm curious to hear the lead track though.

 

Oh man, if you haven't seen them since '89, I can understand your feelings. The tours now are NOTHING like that tour...which was a bit over-the-top doing Tommy and all...but one can hardly say they play the hits only....with such a huge backlog of material I think they dip into the nuggets pretty deeply. They aren't the old Who anymore....we all know that, but they really play well now...and Pete wails on electric again....huge improvements in monitor gear have helped his ears immensely....go see them if you can...you'll enjoy the show...Ron

 

The truth is that every band reaches a point where they are not creating new stuff that gets added to the "canon" that created their legend. When a band plays live and the audience no longer wants to hear anything new, the line has been crossed into nostalgia, IMO. I think it was Noel Gallagher from Oasis, or maybe it was Morissey from the Smiths who said, anyone who gets to the top tier of the muisc business as a star , where there is a "buzz" about you, gets about five years maximum. Then it's all downhill, or you aren't cutting-edge anymore. I think that's about right, though there may be a few exceptions. The Beatles got seven years. Miles Davis much longer because he kept reinventing himself. Ditto Bowie. Some people like Peter Gabriel seemed to have stretched things out just by having a second round as a solo and just taking longer between albums. But I think that is a correct observation that most everybody has a "heyday" and then it's pretty much over. The Who have done whole tours without anything new to offer. They can be as dynamic as all get out in live performance. They can even "care" about the music as much or more than the fans. Doesn't matter. Ongoing creativity is the key. TheChief's post with the dictionary definition is correct. I'm not dismissing the band, just acknowledging the fact that they are not creating an ongoing stream of new Who music anymore. We will see if the new album actually materializes or not. I wish them the best. As for current bands playing less new material than old - sure that's sort of the way things work because fans demand it. Even Dylan has worked that way for ages, but then he does radical new arrangements of old tunes to keep it interesting too. Audiences don't typically like that either. Unfortunately audiences are there to hear the hits, or at least the familiar, anyway, unless we are talking about jam bands, improvisers, or Jazz performers. But artists like McCartney, Elton John, etc. still mix in the new stuff and eventually it gets accepted. Why would they want to go to all the trouble of composing and working in the studio just to have it disappear forever after the sessions are over? Elvis Costello is belligerent and ornery enough to push more new material than old in concert. I like his attitude. But the key is whether new material is eventually accepted into the "canon" so that it can be played maybe on the next tour with more positive reception.

 

I don't think it's the really the Who and Pete would probably admit that but it sounds like he just doesn't care anymore and he is enjoying playing music and being on stage with Roger Daltrey and I can't think of a better reason for them to tour. Call it the Who or the Pete Townsend bad or what ever you like the show will be the same.
Moon's intensity and Entwhistles virtuousity will be missed but when you break it down it was always Pete's band. He was the driving force behind it so as far as I'm concerned if he has the stones to call it the Who then it is the Who.
It's not like Roger Daltrey made a solo record and sued Pete for the name so he could line his pockets with huge album sales and gate reciepts ala David Gilmour and band he called Pink Floyd in the 80's and early 90's.
It is the two surviving members of a band going out and having fun and playing music so who cares what they call themselves.

 

I saw the Quad tour at MSG. I thought that was a good show. Still, after Entwistle died I thought they should retire the Who name. I saw that Royal Albert Hall DVD from 2000 or so & thought the band sounded the best it had since 82, but Daltrey's voice sounded really shot at times. Maybe they should drop a key or two at this point. The guy is 62 or something. They did pull out a few rarities though which was refreshing. At this point, I have no desire to see them though. I hope they surprise me and make a great record...we'll see. I think they should call it Pete Townshend & Roger Daltey but I guess that is a moot point.

 

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002074866
Latest Who news from billoard


The Who has unveiled its first batch of 2006 tour dates, beginning June 25 in Leeds, England, the site of the group's legendary 1970 concert album "Live at Leeds." European shows are on tap through July 23 in Ulm, Germany, and are expected to be followed by dates in North America.

Although he didn't go into specifics, guitarist Pete Townshend recently wrote on his blog that the Who would be "releasing DVDs of every show and releasing a new CD" this summer. The group has previously released authorized soundboard recordings of its shows via online retailer TheMusic.com.

No details have yet been revealed about the aforementioned new CD, the Who's first since 1982's "It's Hard." Townshend said earlier this month, "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."

Here are the Who's tour dates:

June 25: Leeds, England (Harewood House)
July 5-6: Liverpool, England (Liverpool Summer Pops)

July 8: Naas, Ireland (Oxegen Festival)
July 9: Kinross, England (T in the Park Festival)
July 11: Bonn, Germany (Museumplatz)
July 12: Berlin (Wuhlheide)
July 15: Monte Carlo, Monaco (Sporting Club)
July 17: Vienne, France (Cote du Rock Festival)
July 18: Amneville, France (Le Galaxie)
July 22: Saint Polten, Austria (Lovely Days Festival)
July 23: Ulm, Germany (Munsterplatz)

 

I'd say that the Beatles really only got five years as well: 1963 - 1968. Although there were genius tracks on Let It Be and Abbey Road, it was downhill after the White Album.