| 5th November 2006 02:29 PM |
|
|
| Poison Dart |
Anybody know where The Who's new album entered the UK charts?
I think those numbers come out on Sunday in the UK. |
| 5th November 2006 03:44 PM |
|
|
| Hannalee |
No. 9, according to the Radio 1 webpage.
I've only just ordered it....
|
| 5th November 2006 04:00 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
what about the US? |
| 5th November 2006 05:35 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
mrhipfl wrote:
what about the US?
Next Wednesday... |
| 5th November 2006 06:16 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
Next Wednesday...
Look for a #1 Chart Entry ( Their very first )
Word .
Kins |
| 5th November 2006 08:26 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Joey wrote:
Look for a #1 Chart Entry ( Their very first )
Word .
Kins
Top 5 is almost sure. |
| 5th November 2006 10:09 PM |
|
|
| Poison Dart |
Is there any chance The Who enters the US chart at #1?
Top 5 would still be pretty good. |
| 5th November 2006 10:52 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:
Is there any chance The Who enters the US chart at #1?
No, the #1 would sell 250-300k, the Who around 90-100k.
In UK they sold 27k the first week. |
| 6th November 2006 02:10 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Well I went out and bought the new Who album tonight and gave it a thorough listen.
Long Album! 21 songs. More like a double album if vinyl was still around.
Verdict=OK
Not horrible, not a disgrace. Just not totally gripping. If you are a true Who fan you will think it a not bad effort. For a novice Who person you will be bored alot and will find it avaerage at best.
The first part of this disc lacks real good song writing as Pete is capable of. Many of the tunes lack a good melody. Decent choruses but that is just it. Alot of the songs consist of too much chorus all over the place and not enough melody in the first half of the album. It makes the album seem mostly made up of what could be pretty good songs if more melody and song writing was put in.
I also think the Buba Oriely bit was kinda too over-the-top starting the album AND finishing it as well.
Production is ok. But that is just it....OK production. Not bad. Could of been alot better though.
The goods are Roger and Pete show signs of the power they are capable of. Roger's Vox are pretty decent as well. Petes Guitar play is pretty good actually. The Production could of made him sound even more beefy and raw. It is 90% raw Who at times but you know we are missing some key, key memnbers here is the main reason for it. Still the production could be more to what us Who fans were craving....raw, powerful Who and not too much eles.
Over all for a Who fan it isn't too bad. It isn't a flop in the face. It isn't anything earth moving either.
The real dissapoitment here is the new album Endless Wire is nothing you crave, or wanna throw on all buzzed up and ready to go out. It is something you just listen to, while cleaning the house or something.
Endless Wire is better than just totaly "fair", however it is not enough to say, "hey good damn album huh" to a buddy.
As said before, not a real dissapointment, but nothing to tell your buddy's to run out and buy either.
What The Who needed here, as much as folks will say it defeates the purpose of Pete Townsends talent and total contribution is a good producer who knew what fans really wanted here. It would of helped this album out alot. there is some good things here. Some pretty decent songs at the end but in the first 8-10 songs the tracks could of used more raw production (even though the production on this album on some tracks is along the raw lines, just not 100%), and better song writing with more melody instead of being built on mostly loads of chorus. The album could of been cut a good six songs short and kept a little neater. Good stuff's in there but there is a little fat as well. Also it needed a good producer to have it all run together a little differently and better. It shows good talent is still there and The Who can still rock for the most part. But only every three songs is worthy.
***********The album runs pretty much in this repetition:
1 pretty decent tune that sounds pretty good, one fair to average tune, and one that needed cut or worked on alot more but isn't so bad you vomit. This is what the album consists of over and over through-out the whole 21 songs.
I am glad I gave it a listen. That says something at-least. Thing is I can't say it is good enough to stay in my CD player and I am not sure when I will play it again. I know I will. It is good enough to spin it again. But not good enough to play at a party....even though The Who were never meant for that really.
It seems you have to be in a certain type of mood to play it. Kinda seems like a Sunday album. I wish it was more raw, and had more melody to the tunes.
Ok I bitched enough. Over all it is Not too bad. An OK effort.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen]
[Edited by IanBillen]
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| 6th November 2006 04:56 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Good luck to them, but to be honest, i'll just play Who's Next again. |
| 6th November 2006 05:51 AM |
|
|
| gotdablouse |
Rog's voice had been horrible since at least 2001, just listened to his 1973 solo LP and those were the days. |
| 6th November 2006 04:03 PM |
|
|
| jostorm |
Update on the radio: at Nr 7 in the UK tonight ! |
| 6th November 2006 04:08 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
jostorm wrote:
Update on the radio: at Nr 7 in the UK tonight !
Number # 7 ?!?!
Really ....?!
What about the United States ?!?!
Please ...... I needs to's knows. |
| 6th November 2006 05:32 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
jostorm wrote:
Update on the radio: at Nr 7 in the UK tonight !
after one day of sales for week #2? LOL |
| 6th November 2006 05:39 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
No way the Who debuts in the top 5 in the US. They will be lucky to break into the top 10.
I predict lucky number 13. |
| 6th November 2006 05:46 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
I predict lucky number 13.
I can live with that .....
I really can ... |
| 6th November 2006 06:22 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
In US, currently at #7 with 30% of the Soundscan numbers reported. Barry Manilow will be #1 again with his 60's album, second #1 album in 8 months.
In UK, the Who sold 26.949 copies sold the first week. |
| 6th November 2006 06:59 PM |
|
|
| PeerQueer |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
In US, currently at #7 with 30% of the Soundscan numbers reported. Barry Manilow will be #1 again with his 60's album, second #1 album in 8 months.
In UK, the Who sold 26.949 copies sold the first week.
_________
The Boomers love Manilow.
My aunt thinks he is sooooooo cute!
My uncle can't stand him...
Barry is making big bank these days.
Rod Stewart is his only competition. What the fuck Rod????? |
| 6th November 2006 08:03 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
In UK, the Who sold 26.949 copies sold the first week.
 |
| 6th November 2006 08:21 PM |
|
|
| Left Shoe Shuffle |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah
After reading that palaver, I was reminded of a band other than The Who - "You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything."
Qu'est que c'est?
|
| 6th November 2006 08:41 PM |
|
|
| Poison Dart |
# 7 isn't bad. It think the last Who record peaked at #8 in the early 80's.
Are any of the indivual songs making an impact on any of the rock charts? |
| 6th November 2006 09:30 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Manilow hit #1 by selling his CD on QVC. He long ago gave up the ability to feel shame. |
| 6th November 2006 09:35 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:
# 7 isn't bad. It think the last Who record peaked at #8 in the early 80's.
Are any of the indivual songs making an impact on any of the rock charts?
It's Not Enough peaked at #37 on Billboard's Mainstream Rock Tracks three weeks ago. |
| 7th November 2006 08:21 AM |
|
|
| justinkurian |
Who: what, where and why
TOWNSHEND REPORT SUMS UP 40 YEARS OF SUPER GROUP'S LOSSES AND NET GAINS
By Shay Quillen
Mercury News
Pete Townshend wouldn't sit down for a phone interview before the Who's San Jose show, but he agreed to take a few questions via e-mail.
What we got back was better than we hoped for: five pages of sharp, insightful, thoughtful prose on topics ranging from the evolution of the Internet to the ``magic'' of the Rolling Stones.
The 61-year-old songwriter and guitarist is sharing stages with singer Roger Daltrey again as the Who, touring the United States in support of ``Endless Wire,'' the band's first album of new material in 24 years. The tour hits the HP Pavilion on Wednesday.
Here is the complete text of the online interview with Pete Townshend of the Who that ran in a shorter form in Tuesday's Mercury News.
Q No one who went to your show at Shoreline Amphitheatre just a few days after John Entwistle died will ever forget it. What are your memories of those first few shows back on the road after his death?
A I sit now in Los Angeles in the very room I first got the news of his death from Who manager Bill Curbishley. Roger came over about an hour later and was visibly shaken. I think I had been expecting it, I was less shocked than when Keith Moon died as Keith had been working on a rehab program of sorts.
Bill and I had had a number of conversations about how we might be able to help guide John to look after himself a little better; we had also been concerned that touring to help him pay his debts (pretty much the only reason I went out on the road with the Who from 1998 to 2002) might not help him at all in the long run.
So a dozen issues were running though my mind. Roger left the decision about going on to me, and after a sleepless night pacing this room I decided to go on. The first shows were actually quite amazing. Pino Palladino stepped in on bass, he was here with us ready to work within hours of us deciding to go on. John was hugely evident by his absence -- his sound was so big, fluid and rich -- that in a way we didn't miss him at all: He seemed to be with us on stage at the Hollywood Bowl.
It's all coming back to us today because our longtime keyboard player John Bundrick's wife is seriously ill in hospital and he will not be performing with us this weekend at the Bowl, so again we find ourselves adapting to changes life brings and feeling grateful we have our health.
Q How has your relationship with Roger Daltrey changed now that the Who is just the two of you?
A John's death made us both re-evaluate what we wanted from each other. I think prior to that we focused mainly on what the band meant to each of us. Afterwards we realized we had spent 40 years together on and off playing music and we had a deep and loving mutual respect.
But we had our differences. I was angry with John for not looking after himself better; Roger celebrated John's rock 'n' roll lifestyle as the best way to go through the ``Mirror Door.'' But we knew we both loved him, and we became aware that were it one of us who had gone, that love would also figure largely.
Creatively everything became quite a bit simpler for me. John was never a difficult person to please with songs -- Roger is tougher. But when he was alive the Who hard-rock mythology lived most powerfully in his sound I think, so Roger and I felt our work together in the future might be less encumbered by the Who's heavy rock history. This has turned out to be only partly true, but the new CD demonstrates that the two us can go in directions that would have been tricky had we still been working with John's massive, stunning bass playing.
Q Since you're coming to Silicon Valley, it seems appropriate to ask about your interest in the Internet. You wrote about ``the Grid'' on ``Lifehouse'' in the early '70s. What did you think when the Internet came into prominence?
A In the '70s I had no idea the global hook-up would take so long to incorporate pure entertainment as one of its primary functions. I thought art and music would be the beginning, not the afterthought it is proving to be. I thought we would share music and experiences, even a form of physical contact (through VR).
Like many early users of the Internet I found the text-based world rather cold. As images began to appear I began to get uneasy because -- as with video recording -- pornography purveyors seemed to be the first people to harness and drive the technology. I quickly lost any vision that the Internet might lead to the higher level of human congregation I had dreamed of in the '70s.
But suddenly today, art and music is taking over the Internet, and some of the biggest statistics relate to searches of video and music in which any salacious images are usually humorous or ridiculous in some way in order to maintain their interest. It's fun to surf the Internet now, there is so much to enjoy as well as to learn. I'm not saying porn has lost its grip, but most Internet users are bored by it now, and concerned only to protect the people behind the images displayed -- which has always been my passionate concern.
Vint Cerf said the Internet is a mirror of society. We get both good and bad. But my concern back in the '70s was that when art and music did surface on some kind of global ``Grid'' like today's Internet it would be the media ``Barons'' who controlled the content. Today it is they we must look to for moral guidance, and too many billions of dollars are driving this issue. The Internet is the new ``oil''; it's a Gold Rush. That makes people forget what is morally correct, and where morality is guided rather than policed.
Q Did you feel prescient?
A You bet. But a lot of credit must go to my teachers at Ealing Art School in 1961, to Roy Ascott and Harold Cohen, both of whom saw that in the future computers would change the way we speak, the way we communicate and finally the entire function of art itself. I've traveled through life knowing this was going to happen one day as surely as I know that when some crazy dictator gets a big nuclear weapon he will use it. Listen to me.
Q Have you put ``Lifehouse'' to bed now after the release of the six-CD set, or might it still pop up in another format?
A This is a cyclic idea by its very nature, I suppose it might keep going round and around forever as long as I am a writer. Far from putting it to bed I want to bring what was good about it to life. The last chapter is the place you might go to sit for your own individual authentic musical portrait. Today that would be a Web site and a big concert. Very soon I will bring that Web site to the world, as a functioning music producer, composer and artist, not as a loony visionary.
Q I've been reading about Method Music, but I don't quite understand it. In what way do participants ``sit'' for a musical portrait? How much interest have you received so far?
A The Web site is still operating with a small beta group of testers, and the results are encouraging. Some of my own sittings have produced music that amazes me. Not sure I like it. I fancy myself as a piece by Henry Purcell. I sound more like a rather sad Terry Riley. Still, pretty impressive for a piece of software. I will launch next year I think.
Q You've been playing about 12 songs a night from a new album that (up till now) few have heard. How is the new material going over?
A Really well. I've been amazed how well. The mini-opera section has beautiful video images with it; that helps. But songs like ``Man in a Purple Dress'' (just Roger and me on acoustic guitar) are as powerful to play as the big classics, received not so much respectfully as intently, with full engagement.
Q Some have criticized you for giving the ``CSI'' shows the right to use Who songs. Is ``Mike Post Theme'' aimed at those critics? What point are you trying to make in that song?
A The song has nothing to do with the ``CSI'' deals. I am conscious that every song I license to TV or movie -- especially the good ones -- even to certain commercials, keeps Who music in the public mind.
Remember Who music has always been used to sell products through the advertising on radio which we did not control. We are always paid a small amount when our songs are played on radio, so we have always been a part of that often unethical but commercial advertising business, just as a journalist is who writes for a journal that sells advertising space.
``Mike Post Theme'' is about something a little higher I think. TV series, and their theme tunes, do two impossible things: They defy time and ageing by allowing us to live forever vicariously in the characters we watch, but they remind us that time is passing, show by show, week by week.
When I first came to the U.S. in 1967, ``I Love Lucy'' was always on TV somewhere. When I saw her pretty face, I was reminded how much older she must have become, how much younger I was (then) than she. Today the same shows remind me I have overtaken her TV persona. There is a valuable poignancy there that is not sentimental in any way, and yet reaches to the heart of human vulnerability.
Mike Post's theme from ``Hill Street Blues'' reminds me that once I associated the sound with a cop who couldn't deal with his drink problem. Now I hear it and I remember a brother, for pretty soon I was facing the same problem.
Q Doris Day lives just down the road from us in Carmel. Have you had any communication with her about her inclusion in the list of dead artists on ``Mirror Door''?
A No. I am of course delighted that news of her death was greatly exaggerated. I included her in what was otherwise quite a serious list of front-line artists who lived pretty hard or had endured tough lives. She was meant to provide a balance, someone shinier and happier. Of course the very fact that her life was less tough than the others might be the very reason she has survived into old age.
She deserves her place in my cast of legends, dead or alive. I'm sending ``Dog'' to bring her in so she can be in our video as an usher at the foot of the stairway to heaven rather than one of those waving from its summit, and I suppose she should really receive a copy of the Who CD.
Q What's with the Tom Waits-style singing on ``In the Ether''?
A What's with the question? That's me singing. I'm 60 years old pretending to be 80. My voice is an instrument I can't always control. I love Tom Waits, but listen to him, he sounds like gravel being hauled through an oil can. I just sound a teensy bit gruff. Tom is the man. There is really no such thing as Tom Waits ``style'' singing.
Q The visitors to our Web site, mercurynews.com, are all abuzz about your non-interview with Howard Stern. Would you like to give your side of the story? Did you not know what you were getting into?
A My partner Rachel is working for Sirius presenting collateral for the Who Channel. I was invited to play some live music on Howard's show and to record some more for Rachel's Who show. I am a distant friend of Howard through his partner Beth, and I know his show.
I would not agree with reports that I ``stormed out'' of the interview with Howard Stern; I would say that I walked away before the show when I heard Robyn saying they were going to ask me about my sexual history. I am not angry with Howard or his team, and they have a perfect right to discuss my sexual past whenever they choose; I am a public person. I decided not to join what was threatening to be a lighthearted inquisition of sexual subjects that cause widely felt discomfort when not seriously addressed.
The story of my life is as yet untold. Until I complete my memoirs I rely on my family, friends, fans and colleagues to believe in me almost unconditionally. Anyone unwilling to wait for my story must address the facts at hand and make their own decision.
I was cleared of all charges brought against me in 2003. The caution I received was mandatory because I admitted using a credit card as part of a wider research exercise (begun in 1998) intended to gather evidence to present to various finance and Internet companies to persuade them to try harder to prevent the use of children in the pornography industry. These are the facts. For the record, I no longer lobby publicly about this issue, but I continue to underwrite organizations that support adult ``survivors'' of childhood abuse.
Q You and your peers -- Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Ray Davies, et al. -- are entering into uncharted territory, using rock 'n' roll to write about life after 60. What's your impression of the work so far?
A It's strange, and much the same. We were all waiting to either die or to be deposed. Neither has happened, so we get grouchy and continue. In my case I get carried away sometimes and say and do things I regret, but when I'm songwriting I feel all the good and bad I've lived through adds value to my work. That's true of all the artists you mention and many others.
In the past I suppose we have watched many aging but still cherished C&W artists go through what we are now going through -- we can learn a lot from them.
Q The Stones are playing the Bay Area three days before the Who. We're inviting readers to weigh in on which is the greater band. How do you vote? Why?
A The Stones are ``greater.'' But the Who are probably best musically right now. We carry less baggage, but as a result we may also convey less magic. Simply seeing Mick and Keith standing on a stage together rocks my world.
Both bands are far too old and successful to even worry about all this, but I think perhaps we do. Mick is competitive I know. But he is also incredibly supportive; he has called me during this tour, brought me in to work on his solo records and has been to see the Who play a number of times in the past 10 years. Keith writes his friends get-well cards these days.
I will always be a fan of the Stones until the day I die. They helped to shape me; remember that when I was 16 at art school in Ealing they did their few shows in London at the Ealing Club nearby. The word was out two years before I wrote my first song.
|
| 7th November 2006 11:28 AM |
|
|
| Ronnie Richards |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Verdict=OK
Not horrible, not a disgrace. Just not totally gripping.
Production is ok. But that is just it....OK production. Not bad. Could of been alot better though.
Over all for a Who fan it isn't too bad. It isn't a flop in the face. It isn't anything earth moving either.
Endless Wire is better than just totaly "fair", however it is not enough to say, "hey good damn album huh" to a buddy.
As said before, not a real dissapointment, but nothing to tell your buddy's to run out and buy either.
Over all it is Not too bad. An OK effort.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen]
[Edited by IanBillen]
[Edited by IanBillen]
So let me guess - you think the album is OK? |
| 7th November 2006 11:38 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Manilow hit #1 by selling his CD on QVC. He long ago gave up the ability to feel shame.
did he plug it on "Days of our lives", though? |
| 7th November 2006 11:41 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Nice article, Justin. Thanks for posting it. |
| 7th November 2006 11:47 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
So did the new WHO album enter the charts
right at Number # 1 ?!?!
Please ......I's needs to's knows
Snarky ! ™
|
| 7th November 2006 07:02 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
It looks like #5 with 90k, Manilow #1 with over 200k. |
| 7th November 2006 07:40 PM |
|
|
| rolling who |
Soldatti -- where are you getting that information? |
