Music News
Oct 19, 2006, 11:00 GMT
Pete Townshend attacks old rockers
And Also
Pete Townshend - View Pete Townshend Pictures - Pete Townshend News
|
Latest Headlines in Music
- 1. In Pictures: 'Alicia KeysPerforms on NBC's Today Show'
- 2. In Pictures: 'Susan Boyle Performs on NBC's Today Show'
- 3. Legend Tina Turner turns 70
- 4. In Pictures: 'Lady Gaga Promotes Fame Monster'
- 5. In Pictures: 'Rihanna Promotes Her New CD Rated R'
Older Talkback
page: 1
He's got a point. There are some older bands/artists who can keep rockin (Bon Jovi, U2, Def Leppard) but the Rolling Stones are just TOO old. Plus all their new stuff is usually crap... look at Madonna, it's like watchin your grandma dance around in a leotard, like ::puke:: and she's not even as old as them. You've gotta know when to hang it up.
Pete has a point ... that is about paying to see HIS OWN band. The Who only ever did one good live gig. Whereas the Stones still can pull off a good concert. They ROCK, unlike U2 who I've heard are putting a beat down now on their new album which is supposed to be a rock opera based on the life of Mother Teresa. Rock On Rolling Stones.
I just saw all three bands in one week out here in Seattle: Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones and The Who. The Stones and Bob Dylan delivered the goods - money well spent. At the Who, Townshend walked off stage during the first song due to alleged equipment problems and nearly half the songs were new material. Pete, I love your pre-80's songs, but this band your touring as The Who should be called The Why.
Townsend's point is puerile. He does not have a point actually- it's too silly for words! Great art has nothing to do with age. Picasso and Michelangelo two of the greatest artists of all time, did their best work as very old men. There is no age limit on art. Why can't the older fans go and see the rock stars they love? Is there an age limit on attending rock concerts? Both the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, musically are actually blues artists. Rock especially 60's style rock is basically blues. The trouble with rock music now is that the only things you need to be a 'legend' is be young and good looking-your ability doesn't matter anymore. When the mindless recording companies see beyond looks they might actually find some good talent again. The artist is not there to mate physically with the audience. He/she is there to make good music. When the big powers in music recognise this fact again and look for ability rather than the next Beyonce or other young model then good music will be promoted again. If older people can pack stadiums night after night all over the world, what's it to Pete?. Dylan started as a folksinger then revolutionised rock.He is not primarily a rock singer as much as a multi-idiom vernacular singer. Has Peter heard 'Aint Talking' on Dylan's last album- one of the best songs Dylan has ever written. Townsend is too silly to take seriously and this explains why he could never write Like a Rolling Stone (pun intended). He was never in the same class as Dylan and the Stones anyway. Rock is supposed to be for everybody; putting age barriers in is silly. There are thousands of fine middle-aged and old musos out there who are shut out coz they are not models; if the industry had any savvy they would look for new acts among these people because there is a lot of undiscovered talent that have matured into amazing musicians- completely ignored. The audience does not come to copulate with the musician- they come to hear the music.
I agree with Danielle and Brian.
Pete Townshend is such a joke, it's really amusing. I'm 25 years old, saw the Stones at the Hollywood Bowl last year, and it went down as one of the most amazing, mind-blowing shows I could ever imagine. They were unbelievably good, to the point where Jagger is still a better performer than ALL of the young 20-something frontmen in 'indie' rock. I WISH I could go see Dylan, he's a legend in his own time. As for the WHO, I saw them on a late night TV show a month or so ago, and they were BLOODY AWFUL. Just crap. I mean, come on, it's obvious Townshend is just cranky and bitter that people my age DON'T CARE about him or his music. But guess what, I have myself to speak for and my younger cousins who are 14, 16, and they ALL LOVE Keith Richards. His face may be wrinkled like an old shoe, but he still looks way cooler than cranky Pete T and his big, fat, balding head. Bottom line: Everyone in my generation, even frigging hip hop kids, give Keith and Mick and Dylan respect, because they've earned it and deserve it. When was the last time one of my peer rockers had a poster-tshirt or reference to Pete T? Never...so there you go.
Townshend is being sarcastic and cynical and just putting a spanner in the works of the 'classic'style interview by not taking it seriously. Your pride for The Stones or Dylan has been hurt (because your a fan of theirs) over comments Townshend made in interviews and thats ok ,its understandable, really, we all LOVE our bands on here. And probably we love 'em and take them too seriously ,but thats ok ,thats what fans do. So do I. The Who , were always an intelligent alternative to The Beatles & The Stones, Bob Dylan too, though it seems almost written in the constitution if your a 60's fan of British Pop music you must choose between the usual suspects...Stones or Beatles. Bullshit . Townshend was songwriter of choice for many Rock music fans of the same era as Dylan fans. Townshend has unconditionally praised Dylan & The Stones in many interviews. He appears to get very bored of talking about the same old shite though and he is uncomfortable with become part of Rock establishment, so, he slags off what HE IS PART OF. And he is well aware of it . Where Dylan made social& political comments in his beautifully written songs that stay in the hearts of his fans, so did Townshends work help people deal with frustrations and anger ,aggression, The Who's work is very British to some degree and some of it may not translate internationally though alot does. Your Granny could listen to the Beatles and not be offended, The Who were not musically or lyrically always a comfortable experience they were much more confrontational than that. As a disabled Man I speak for a Rock band and Townshend , a writer/musician, that I feel you either get or you dont, and I feel with hand on heart after being a fan at one stage in my life of all these bands mentioned (&Dylan) Always loved The Stones always will. Townshend made the Who a much more progressive band in Pop music terms than any of the others, working with early synthesisers and synth programming, while writing epic pieces like Tommy and Quadrophenia . He's always been a loose Cannon, stroppy and shooting his mouth off (but thats Rock&Roll isnt it?) . He's a grumpy old git, He used to be a grumpy young Git but its what made him right some great stuff. Just look through the back catalogue of singles. She loves you Yeah Yeah Yeah?? The Beatles can back into there Yellow Submarine and f......off
Its a bit much to say that Pete is a nobody, or that The Who's work is inferior to the Stone's. The former is a matter of awareness, the latter a matter of taste. Factually, Pete has always been at the cutting edge of his genre. First, in exploring anger, frustration and aggression as valid subjects for pop/rock music. Alot of people need(ed) that, and couldn't get it with the other british rock acts. This was an attitude that is at the base of punk/ hardcore, which is far more relevant today than the Stone's cock rock, or Dylan's beatnik era strumming-poetry. Then there is Pete's work in synthesis and computer technology, which the other old rockers mentioned never even explored; they've relied on their established sound all this time. Many teens i have met, who are into heavy, hard music, listen to The Who. They may be finished off now, but have a look at the Concert for New York (2001). You will see that what finished them was the death of Entwhistle, not a lack of energy or merely their age.
Ah, Pete has a point. It just makes sense. Of course you can't go playing on forever, this is now what's happening. This is a new thing since Rock hasn't been around long we haven't seen how bands will truly end. I would LOVE to meet Pete and talk to him about this. I agree with Townshend on what 'kiddies' and 'teeny boppers' are listening to now. Personally, being 16 myself, I don't know many that thrive on The Who, Stones, or others as I do. Kids tend to be sheep, they're gonna listen to what's 'cool' not what's good. That's what makes me sick. Also, the fact that I will never get to see my heroes live. That hurts the most. I think the 'oo fill out stadiums because, yes, a lot of the people are those who have grown up with the Who, but others being 20 somethings who want to hear some Baba O'Riley, or Won't Get Fooled Again. As were a lot of the people at the Stones concert. It gets really old how people shrug the Stones off as old farts. A rude person asked me,'Oh, did Mick come out in a wheelchair?' All I wanted to say was obvious.
Also, maybe the reason the people only come to the concerts once is because that's all we can afford? Christ, it costs more to see bands in concerts than it is to buy all of their albums.
Well Pete, if you ever come to town, you can count me in as being one of the few teens to see ya.
All I'm going to say is take a look at Paul Rodgers (and Queen) and then tell me he's not as good as he always was - he rocks!!
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story