Pete Townshend: Update on The Who...

Just what the name says.
User avatar
stevef
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:35 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Pete Townshend: Update on The Who...

Postby stevef » Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:15 pm

Pete Townshend has some updates on The Who in his online diaries--


Who's Nixed

The Who's Pete Townshend says he will stop webcasting the band's concerts for free following the last show of its European trek this Saturday in Zaragoza, Spain. The guitarist explains that objections from singer Roger Daltrey prompted his decision. "[Daltrey] seems to be unconvinced that the Web has any real contribution to make to our career," Townshend laments in an online post*. He also reports that the In the Attic Internet show hosted by girlfriend Rachel Fuller still will air before each upcoming Who concert.


*Online post:

24 July 2006

Mixing and Nixing

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIXING

Three days off from the tour – I am mixing the last few tracks of the new Who record at my house in France. It’s starting to sound pretty good.

Rachel’s birthday today. We shopped for some clothes for her last week, so today she was supposed to just try them all on again – but she spent the day planning and budgeting for her new style In The Attic series for the U.S tour.

The show at Ulm was a pleasure in every way. I managed to get on top of my wayward guitar sound by doing a guitar-only sound-check, and got in the zone with my playing. For those of you who bought tickets to watch the show live on the web, I hope you enjoyed it. I did.

Looking forward to our first shows ever in Spain – Madrid and Zaragosa – later this week, and then we take a break for a month before we ship off to the USA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIXING


I’m afraid that it looks very much as though after Zaragosa there will be no free webcasting of any more Who shows, or even segments of the shows, Live or streamed on demand. I may be able to post some segments of the shows in Rachel’s In The Attic series, but only if we can work out some way to pay Roger for exhibiting (or should I say exploiting) his magnificent image and vocals.

Seriously, he seems to be unconvinced that the web has any real contribution to make to our career, and I am not going to spend any more time or money mortgaging my half of the stage – though I may webcast some Who shows and not show Roger at all. Only kidding. For now we have a famous Who stalemate.

If you believe Roger is wrong - and if 2.5 million minutes of Who clips viewed by fans on the web won’t convince him, we’ll need a lot of emails - please write and tell him at thegreatevilweb@hotmail.com

There will perhaps be some Pay For View webcasts for charity, news later. Do enjoy the last two shows at www.thewholive.tv. After Zaragosa www.thewho.com is also coming down from inside www.petetownshend.com where I have run it as a microsite for a number of years. I am hoping I can persuade Roger to put in some money to help run it. Again, your emails to urge him on could be useful. If you feel you can live without a Who website – and there are a good number of wonderful fan-run sites and chat-rooms – then you could say so. But if you feel the Who site has some special value to you, and you would like to see more about – and from – Roger, then let us know.



from Pete Townshend's Official Site--


25 July 2006

After the Fall


I have already had quite a few emails from fans expressing various views about the cancellation of Who Live webcasting on my www.thewholive.tv website. I’m delighted for the feedback and will share your views with Roger when I get a chance.

I want to say a few things:

1. I don’t want Roger to appear to be a completely against webcasting. He has mixed feelings about it, and as a result would be happiest for a major sponsor to take it over. Intel came close to offering us a deal that involved helping to launch their ViiV system, but I was uncertain about it. It seemed to me that I personally would have the bulk of the work helping Intel to set up and run a new website dedicated to the Who. Roger offered to contribute to a website once it was up and running, but he reserved the right not to do so some times. What he will definitely not do is pay for it. I have been willing thus far to pay for a Who website, and webcasting, for a variety of reasons. Not least, I am already the Who’s principal music publisher, and as a producer I believe In The Attic is a powerful tool to get new personalities and music out in a world where traditional radio is still tied too tightly to advertising and demographics.

2. The Who are well established as a classic rock touring war-horse. Webcasting the Who, whether Live or Pay For View, and donating profits (nor proceeds) to various causes, was entirely my idea. I was unable to share my plan properly with Roger prior to the tour because we were having such trouble meeting our recording deadlines. My feeling, still, is that webcasting allows us new ways to get our new music across that our traditional Live show does not. I have yet to convince Roger of this. Sadly, I announced my grand plans, and put them in action, before Roger really had a chance to digest what I was doing.

3. Six months prior to the start of the Who tour I established a plan for the Live webcasting of In The Attic (during the Who tour but not allied to it). I subsequently persuaded Rachel Fuller (the presenter and my co-producer) to do her show from Who shows for my convenience, even though that caused her a lot of problems – noise from the Who stage, extreme heat at outdoor shows, the expense of taking the video and sound rig to every Who gig, the cost of Satellite equipment etc. The upside for Rachel turned out to be that at Festivals she was able to invite other bands on to chat and play – and we both enjoyed that. I also pleaded with her to include a Live Who song from every Who show in case she sold her show on to television – that way the Who would appear before a wider audience.

4. It will be clear that I simply decided to combine the two main events: In The Attic webcasting was combined with Live Who webcasting (the latter to raise money for charities Roger and I both feel passionate about).

5. The statistics for both the Who viewing figures and for In The Attic are quite phenomenal. They are more surprising for In The Attic; there is a tendency among some people to assume that it is the Who brand name that attracts viewers. The stats show a more balanced view. It appears that about one quarter of those who request video to view on demand watch In The Attic, and they actually stay much longer than the average viewing time on the web. For Live streaming in real time In The Attic outstrips the Who at the moment.

6. I am having a ball doing the In The Attic shows prior to Who shows, and for some reason it is making me feel lighter-hearted about my stage role in the Who. There are number of reasons for this, some are obvious, some less so: I haven’t really evaluated the chemistry yet. It could simply be that I am a performer and I like to have as big an audience as possible. But I do love a technological challenge too. I also like the sound of my own voice.

7. Fans wonder whether Roger’s non-appearance on In The Attic has any significance. Firstly, there has always been an open invitation for him to appear as other artists like Eels or Flaming Lips have appeared – to come on informally and chat and maybe play a song. I believe he is quite simply a little shy, but also feels In The Attic is the exclusive territory or Rachel Fuller and her team (that includes me) and feels he does enough performing on stage with me as ‘The Who’. As yet, he simply hasn’t appeared. No one wants to bully him to commit to come on the show when he is working so hard in the Who.

So there seems to be no real problem. Why am I backing down on Who webcasting? It is simply that while on tour it is too much to carry on my own. I had hoped that Roger would fall more actively behind me, and we could secure a solid sponsorship deal that would make everything flow smoothly, and repay some of my initial investment. Roger has been recorded in the media several times saying that I benefit from publishing income while the Who are not touring, and that allows me greater personal, creative and financial freedom. This is true. But with no promise of any investment from inside or outside the Who I need to stand back now and review my commitment.

Some emails starting to come in are focussing on the price of watching $10 webcasts versus the cost of a $30 DVD. This is not relevant – we are selling Live webcasts. If you are happy with a recording, and are willing to wait for it, you can get what you want from www.themusic.com. To begin with I settled on 99 cents per song-segment, the iTunes model. Our ‘walk-up’ for this was miserable. The Time Zone was tricky for U.S. fans. So we turned to selling the entire show for $10. This was a little better, but our co-production with Hard Rock at London’s Hyde Park created a massive last minute walk-up that – according to our technical people – caused the Pay To View servers to crash. As a result we were forced to put the show up free, after quite a few people had paid for it. We could have asked for money for Who clips on demand (to avoid Time Zone problems), but in the past I have always put these up on the Who microsite free. Live is Live. Anything could happen when you are Live. An edited, streamed download is just not as exciting, and it is not NEW!!!

Another problem is that the Who seem to be playing roughly the same song set every night. We are back in harness, walking an old warhorse of classic rock songs around Europe’s Festivals – playing to new and often younger crowds who are getting to know us. They want to hear the old music. I swing my arm, Roger swings his mike, kids hold up signs telling me to smash my guitar. It’s fun all over again. Our web fans may well have heard it all before, they are more interested in something new and risky: it is a dilemma. A rock Festival with 80,000 kids who have never seen The Who is not the place to get arty.

I feel I have no alternative but to LET GO of my ambitions to see Live webcasting of all or part of every Who show. In The Attic allows me to play new music and old rarities as and when I want to, and to meet new people while on the road with the Who. This does and will continue to keep me interested and revitalised and – as long as she is willing - has the added bonus of bringing my partner Rachel along on the tour with me.

I will continue to discuss with Roger what we might be able to do on the Who stage to take advantage of the immense webcast experience I have. However, I do not want to bully anyone. Roger is my partner in the Who. He is not my partner in anything else. We love each other but we are not regular social buddies like Bono and Edge, we do not discuss or share ideas, and we have no unified joint vision or strategy for the Who or for creative projects in general. For those of you who think the Who should just get their head down, make a record, and play Live, well….

HERE WE ARE!!!!!

On a positive note – I am really enjoying the Who shows we are doing. We are playing some new songs, and will play more new stuff on the U.S. tour. I am enjoying meeting people and seeing new faces in the crowd. When we get to the USA we will at least be in the same Time Zone as the majority of our fans in a country the Who have played in most over the years. The Who is an old rock warhorse, but I have a new intravenous drip in In The Attic, and it seems to be keeping me sprightly. I feel recharged and lightened by my appearances on In The Attic. So I suppose a lot of good things could happen if I just LET GO AND LET THEM HAPPEN.

As I have said may times here in these dairy pages, watch this space.

User avatar
stevef
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:35 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Postby stevef » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:39 am


Don't Need To Fight

The Who's Pete Townshend says his conflict with singer Roger Daltrey that prompted the guitarist's decision to discontinue webcasting the band's upcoming North American concerts has been exaggerated by the press. "It's Lebanon and Israel who are 'at war' -- not Roger and Pete," Townshend writes online. "Roger and I are in full accord about our lack of accord. Always have been." In addition, Townshend reports that a "new and greatly revised [Who] website" will launch before the band's stateside trek starts.


from Pete Townshend's Official Site--


Pete's Diaries--

28 July 2006
Press Gang

Ah! Journalists. They trawl these diaries over breakfast and extrapolate something, teasing it to fit a headline created by some sub-editor with a sense of humour.

Today it is the British Times newspaper that correctly divines that I am trying to get a sense of our fans opinion about the value of webcasting so I can give Roger an accurate view, but I am most certainly not "sulking" by stopping the webcasting - I respect Roger's very real ambivalence about it. But of course it frustrates me, the Who is a partnership, neither of us get exactly what we want.

I am an internet nut. In Madrid last night I met at least a dozen shining Spanish fans who up until now I have known only through exchanges on the web on Blogs or through my appearances on In The Attic. There are two way of looking at these people - either they are real fans, who buy tickets and support me unconditionally as an artist, or - as decried by Janet Street Porter recently - they are Blogging 'Saddos'. Either way, we have fun, we connect, we are alive. At a concert where the Who play to what looked like 20,000 roaring people I also have a more intimate sense of connection with some of the audience. I suppose the only thing that's 'sad' about that to the press is that it doesn't make them any money.

Until Roger and I have some kind of agreement on webcasting I will stop pushing it. I sincerely thought he would get behind it if I demonstrated how it works. But I have no regrets, the experience has been hugely valuable to me and - as long as I can fund the business - I will continue to produce Live arts-based webcasts shows of some kind for the rest of my life, I feel certain of that.

I am taking down www.thewho.com as well after tomorrow, but again this is not out of spite or anger. This was always something that was planned to be a part of the webcast package, and on this Roger is in agreement to help support a new and greatly revised website, reflecting more of his ideas, as soon as we can find a good webmaster. This new website will definitely go up prior to our first U.S. dates in September.


28 July 2006
Roger and Pete in Madrid


I suppose I should have expected some discourse in Who chatrooms and Blogs about my recent diary postings, but NME and Rolling Stone?

It's Lebanon and Israel who are "at war" - not Roger and Pete.

Roger and I are in full accord about our lack of accord. Always have been.

One matter we will agree on.

Tonight we played the best show of our entire NEW career, our first ever show in Spain, at the Olympic Hall in Madrid. The crowd were spectacular. Beyond that, they were the most familiar with our music of any crowd we have ever played to.

This is not the old Who. We never said it would be. It is something else. It matters. The music came alive tonight in the actions and voices of the audience.

I can't wait to come back to Madrid and play again. I think on this too Roger and I will agree.

User avatar
Crummy Old Label Avatar
Posts: 1226
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:55 pm
Location: Out of my fucking mind

Postby Crummy Old Label Avatar » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:48 pm

I have never heard this group but they sound very promising.

I think that 'the Who' just may have the potential to be the biggest group of 1971.
If you love Hi-REZ TAPE HISS, you're REALLY going to love Stereo Central

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:07 pm

I'm amused that PT seems to believe him + Daltrey = "The Who"

Fucking hell, what a joke.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:10 pm

I'd say they have a better claim than "The Temptations".
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

GoogaMooga
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:39 am

Postby GoogaMooga » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:23 am

You've got the lead guitarist/songwriter and the lead vocalist still alive - why shouldn't it be The Who?

User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:33 am

GoogaMooga wrote:You've got the lead guitarist/songwriter and the lead vocalist still alive - why shouldn't it be The Who?


Yeah, I'm beyond begrudging them the name. If that's what they want, so be it.
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:11 pm

krabapple wrote:I'm amused that PT seems to believe him + Daltrey = "The Who"

Fucking hell, what a joke.


As long as they deliver such fantastic shows as the one I saw in Ulm on July 25, they can call themselves "The Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin & The Beach Boys", if they want. :)

Chris M
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:17 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA

Postby Chris M » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:38 pm

Andreas wrote:
krabapple wrote:I'm amused that PT seems to believe him + Daltrey = "The Who"

Fucking hell, what a joke.


As long as they deliver such fantastic shows as the one I saw in Ulm on July 25, they can call themselves "The Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin & The Beach Boys", if they want. :)


Am much as I would like to I just can't get excited about their current shows. I can't get off on Townshend's guitar tone, IMO Daltrey's voice is gone, and I can't stand fucking Rabbits keyboards. Does he have to play on EVERY song? Does Subsitue really call for keyboards? Zak is great but I'm not a fan of the way his drums sound. Too arena rock for me. Just give me a Tanglewood DVD, that King Biscuit Quad show and the WBN Deluxe Edition and I'll be happy.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:17 pm

Chris M wrote:Am much as I would like to I just can't get excited about their current shows. I can't get off on Townshend's guitar tone, IMO Daltrey's voice is gone, and I can't stand fucking Rabbits keyboards. Does he have to play on EVERY song? Does Subsitue really call for keyboards? Zak is great but I'm not a fan of the way his drums sound. Too arena rock for me. Just give me a Tanglewood DVD, that King Biscuit Quad show and the WBN Deluxe Edition and I'll be happy.


I haven't heard Pino lately, but I'm told his tone is better than JAE's in his final years. I think that was worse than Pete's guitar sound.

I don't play the guitar (if that wasn't already apparent), so I don't know what (body, pickups, amps, etc) makes the biggest difference, but I sure liked Pete's SG sound in the late '60s/early '70s.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:02 pm

GoogaMooga wrote:You've got the lead guitarist/songwriter and the lead vocalist still alive - why shouldn't it be The Who?


Hell, why not just PT himself going out as 'the Who' with whoever he feels is suitable?
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:47 pm

Pino's tone might be great, but you can barely hear it -- they've got him cranked way down. John's bass might have been over-processed and trebly but at least it was *there*.

I saw them in '02 and it just wasn't working for me. It wasn't awful or anything, but it didn't have the spark of the 2000 shows, which for me at least managed to conjure up a fraction of what I imagine the real thing (which I never saw) was like. (1989 was a weird mutant aberration. 1997 was fine for what it was.) I've got no desire to fork over the bucks to see that lineup again.

That said, Townshend and Daltrey can be the Who if they want. I don't think anyone's being misled as to what they're getting, and the band can still whip up a serviceable version of "Won't Get Fooled Again" for all the knuckleheads in the bleachers to pump their fists and go "whoooooooo!" to, and what's the harm in that?

Hell, why not just PT himself going out as 'the Who' with whoever he feels is suitable?


Heh. At one point in the mid-90s, his idea of who was "suitable" was Daltrey and Entwistle, while he stayed home. I think they may have actually played some shows (in Australia?) as the Who.

For him to assume the mantle of the Who by himself now would be a flip-flop totally consistent with his history.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Rob P
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:06 am
Location: Godforsakenland

Postby Rob P » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:15 pm

I don't play the guitar (if that wasn't already apparent), so I don't know what (body, pickups, amps, etc) makes the biggest difference, but I sure liked Pete's SG sound in the late '60s/early '70s.



Hiwatt amps, considered by some as the best guitar amp of all time. My guitar playing friend bought one a few years back. He'd play the opening electric guitar riff of "Pinball Wizard" for me, and it was dead-on late 60s/early 70s Townshend.

These old geezer tours wouldn't be half bad if Townshend still played the Hiwatt. Of course, his hearing's so bad, he wouldn't care which amp he plays, and the clueless boomers wouldn't care if he played through a Hiwatt or a Gorilla. Listening to the Hiwatt at high volumes is like listening to the Siren Song carrying you to the rocky shores of deafness.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:52 pm

Rspaight wrote:Pino's tone might be great, but you can barely hear it -- they've got him cranked way down. John's bass might have been over-processed and trebly but at least it was *there*.


I've heard he's a lot higher in the mix these days, but I haven't heard/seen that for myself.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Crummy Old Label Avatar
Posts: 1226
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:55 pm
Location: Out of my fucking mind

Postby Crummy Old Label Avatar » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:28 pm

Who cares (not me), but I noticed that Townshend is now a paid endorser of the "new" Hiwatt amps. Guess they're not paying him enough to have him actually drag them onstage, though.

Yeah, Hiwatt is the trademark early 70s British rock guitar sound. The entire 70s Pink Floyd output is exclusively Hiwatt-dependent. Gilmour is the one most popularly identified with Hiwatt, but I'd argue that Hawkwind (up to around 1976 or so) had the definitive Hiwatt-fuelled sound. I believe that around 1976 Dave Brock finally switched to a Roland Jazz Chorus -- as did a lot of other people. The thing about Hiwatt is that it was one of the first clean and neutral amps (unlike, say, a Marshall and its trademark distortion), designed to reproduce accurately whatever sound you put into it.

But the Roland JC 120 is a far better and much more reliable amp (even thouigh its distortion channel is a complete joke).

I have no idea what the "new" Hiwatt amps sound like.
If you love Hi-REZ TAPE HISS, you're REALLY going to love Stereo Central