Discussion:
The Who Join Together Box Set
(too old to reply)
kinksfan29
2011-09-10 22:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Just listening to this today and I think it really is good. Reviews on
amazon were surprisingly good. It's mixed very well and everything is
very clear. Any fans here of the album?
hugh jorgan
2011-09-11 02:33:20 UTC
Permalink
I kind of like it, I just have trouble thinking of it as a real Who
album.
s***@comcast.net
2011-09-12 19:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by hugh jorgan
I kind of like it, I just have trouble thinking of it as a real Who
album.
Then think of it as Pete Townshend's DEEP END with Roger on vocals and
Entwistle on bass, and with Steve Bolton on guitar instead of David
Gilmour.
keifspoon
2011-09-14 00:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Then think of it as Pete Townshend's DEEP END with Roger on vocals and
Entwistle on bass, and with Steve Bolton on guitar instead of David
Gilmour.
Does anyone know why Pete picked Bolton to play guitar in 1989? Was he
a fan, were they friends, or was it something else? I do know they
shared the stage when Atomic Rooster appeared on the same bill for the
Concert for Bangladesh at The Oval in 1971.

http://www.ukrockfestivals.com/goodbye-summer-1971.html

Those Hiwatt stacks look awfully familiar....


hugh jorgan
2011-09-14 02:51:36 UTC
Permalink
I think Roger picked him. Joe Walsh was a candidate but he had other
obligations.
keifspoon
2011-09-14 03:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by hugh jorgan
I think Roger picked him. Joe Walsh was a candidate but he had other
obligations.
Really, I didn't know that. I do remember the Joe Walsh story. One
thing's for sure, Bolton came a lot cheaper.
Brian In Atlanta
2011-09-14 10:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Not only can Townshend no longer hear well enough to play lead guitar,
but his ears are so damaged by years of exposure to loud music that he
has to be in a quieter setting. So the band has hired Steve "Boltz"
Bolton, a tall Scotsman with a mountain of hair and a rockabilly
wardrobe. Rumors that Joe Walsh would handle these chores were
started, Townshend says, when Walsh said he's step in if Boltz didn't
work out and Walsh's and the Who's managers decided they might as well
draw up a contract just in case. - Rolling Stone, July 13, 1989

- Brian in Atlanta
http://www.thewhothismonth.com
http://www.twitter.com/#BrianInAtlanta
DGDevin
2011-09-11 03:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by kinksfan29
Just listening to this today and I think it really is good. Reviews on
amazon were surprisingly good. It's mixed very well and everything is
very clear. Any fans here of the album?
I listened to it when I first got it and I don't think it's been on the
digital turntable since. That was the tour where Pete infamously told one
audience (with a sneer on his lip) that the band had reformed strictly for
the money (as Entwistle in particular needed cash). Add to that all the
backing musicians and Pete playing mostly acoustic guitar and for me it's
pretty low on the list of live Who recordings. IMO it wasn't until Pete
wanted to be onstage with The Who again a decade later that the band really
came back to life, in '89 it was like a Broadway musical starring members of
The Who. But if you enjoy it, cool, any Who is better than no Who.
Brian In Atlanta
2011-09-12 11:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Not that they ever will but I'd love to hear a remix with Entwistle
higher in the mix, especially since that gives you an Entwistle take
on some of the items from Pete's solo catalog. Otherwise, I'd say it
has my favorite version of "You Better You Bet" but not a lot else.

- Brian in Atlanta
http://www.thewhothismonth.com
http://www.twitter.com/#BrianInAtlanta
s***@comcast.net
2011-09-14 16:20:34 UTC
Permalink
I rather liked the 1989 tour. Three-hour shows, complete TOMMYs, lots
of rare material (MAWTSH, TMOA, lots of solo songs, etc.).

Bolton was the weak link. He was merely adequate. He couldn't
impress on lead guitar when everybody wanted Pete. If, for example,
DAVID GILMOUR had been the lead guitarist, no one would have
complained that Pete wasn't playing enough electric.

Walsh might also have been a better choice.

I find it hard to believe Bolton was ROGER's choice. Roger had been
so adamant about firing Kenney Jones as "the wrong drummer for The
Who," that I find it hard to believe he would push for Bolton, who
IMHO was even less of a fit.
Me
2011-09-15 10:09:48 UTC
Permalink
I rather liked the 1989 tour.  Three-hour shows, complete TOMMYs, lots
of rare material (MAWTSH, TMOA, lots of solo songs, etc.).
Bolton was the weak link.  He was merely adequate.  He couldn't
impress on lead guitar when everybody wanted Pete.  If, for example,
DAVID GILMOUR had been the lead guitarist, no one would have
complained that Pete wasn't playing enough electric.
Walsh might also have been a better choice.
I find it hard to believe Bolton was ROGER's choice.  Roger had been
so adamant about firing Kenney Jones as "the wrong drummer for The
Who," that I find it hard to believe he would push for Bolton, who
IMHO was even less of a fit.
As usual, the grumpy old man (of 44 at the time!) didn't want to play
electric lead guitar.  He had to be obstinate and let everyone know
that, despite how much he hates the Who, he still would be the martyr
by being a company man, begrudgingly joining the tour ('I’ll do it,
but I'm only playing acoustic and we're going to promote the Pete
Townshend catalogue, especially my new release, Iron Man, currently
available on Atlantic records and tapes!').  And of course, I don't
blame him.  It's a lot of work (relatively speaking) to travel around
North America playing stadium shows away from your family, so you
might as well get the maximum amount of $$$...which is another reason
why the Who toured in 1989, despite blaming John's drunken-sailor
spending habits.  Pete needed to tour to promote Iron Man; he saw how
much Roger Waters' tour grossed compared to the Waters-less Pink Floyd
tour.  Having the brand name on the tour (the Who/Pink Floyd vs. Pete
Townshend/ Roger Waters) is invaluable.  Just look at how many yahoos
go out to see so-called "Lynyrd Skynyrd", whose only remaining
original member is their sound man from 1974 (I exaggerate, but I
don't mean to offend...I understand the fun in seeing a cover band as
much as seeing the original band).  Anyway, in 1989 the touring Who
made financial sense if not musical sense (but again, I embrace
nostalgia tours and need no new music or particular purpose when
seeing the Who live).  So as much as our hero swooped in to save JAE
from debtor’s prison, he also got his own well-deserved pay at the
same time.  More power to him….and I'd pay all over again.  I mean,
man, I was in college and didn't have two nickels to rub together and
I paid $150 for ONE ticket to see Tommy at Radio City.  Talk about a
loser fanatic...I bought ONE ticket because that's all I could afford
(barely) and drove into the city alone....pathetic, but I'd probably
do it again.  Come to think of it, I had more spare cash at 20 than I
do at 43.....damn kids!  Anyway, I digress....
And the best part of that tour was that our Pete, just as expected,
was stubborn in the beginning by playing only acoustic and then by the
end of the tour he was shredding his fingernails with the guitar
strings and impaling his hand on the whammy bar...like old times.  And
there were some great Who moments on that tour....think about when
just the three of them came out after intermission and did some rare
songs...Tattoo, Maryanne, etc.....good stuff.  Pete also liked (and
still likes) to really jam out on songs that he didn't write (Hey Joe,
Summertime Blues, Shakin' All Over, Young Man Blues, the Quiet One,
etc.).  These are songs on which he plays some of his best guitar.
And our Pete...we don't really know him at all, but in a way we know
him all too well.  Like the apostle who shares his name, he still
denies....he denies that he likes the Who, he denies that we fans
affect him in some small way, he denies that he's interested in
Roger's current endeavor, but he wants to be involved again with the
great Who and the great music they (and he) created...like
Quadrophenia.  He’s rightfully proud and wants it all back again, but
he needs to direct and control it.  And why not?  No one else is
better suited to be at the master panel of the Who.  No other general
can better lead this regiment into battle…no one else can unleash the
fury of the artillery at his command.  All he needs to do is pick up
his weapon and re-enlist!
Sorry for the rambling....you won't hear from me again for months!
T
E
D
PS - I need to be more active over at Odds and Sods.
I'm hoping, but doubtful that when Pete's autobiography comes out next
year that he'll be straight and tell us all exactly what he thought of
post-1978 Who.
Brian In Atlanta
2011-09-15 11:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Me
I'm hoping, but doubtful that when Pete's autobiography comes out next
year that he'll be straight and tell us all exactly what he thought of
post-1978 Who.
I don't think he knows how he feels about it or, to be clearer,
understands the cause of the emotions he feels when he thinks about
The Who. T E D is right, Pete is the King of Denial.

- Brian in Atlanta
http://www.thewhothismonth.com
http://www.twitter.com/#BrianInAtlanta
Ted Maloney
2011-09-15 12:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian In Atlanta
Post by Me
I'm hoping, but doubtful that when Pete's autobiography comes out next
year that he'll be straight and tell us all exactly what he thought of
post-1978 Who.
I don't think he knows how he feels about it or, to be clearer,
understands the cause of the emotions he feels when he thinks about
The Who. T E D is right, Pete is the King of Denial.
 - Brian in Atlantahttp://www.thewhothismonth.comhttp://www.twitter.com/#BrianInAtlanta
Brian, you are certainly more succinct and to the point than I am!
keifspoon
2011-09-16 00:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Me
I'm hoping, but doubtful that when Pete's autobiography comes out next
year that he'll be straight and tell us all exactly what he thought of
post-1978 Who.
How much worse can it be from all the stuff he's said about the
pre-1979 Who?
DGDevin
2011-09-16 05:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by keifspoon
Post by Me
I'm hoping, but doubtful that when Pete's autobiography comes out next
year that he'll be straight and tell us all exactly what he thought of
post-1978 Who.
How much worse can it be from all the stuff he's said about the
pre-1979 Who?
Exactly, Pete is the most vicious critic of the band on earth. Then he'll
turn around and rhapsodize about the band. One day he hates the fans, the
next they're the reason he writes and plays music. He slams himself without
mercy, then he boasts about his great work. The guy is a walking bundle of
contradictions, the one constant is he cares about the music or he wouldn't
get so worked up over it.
s***@comcast.net
2011-09-16 20:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Pete is completely full of piss and vinegar and crap in every
interview he's ever done.

The only person in rock who's ever lied through his teeth as much as
Pete is Dylan.

Of course, to Dylan, it's all a joke. And I mean it's ALL a joke.
Once the songs are written, Dylan sets out to make more fun of them
(and his audience) than anyone else can.
DGDevin
2011-09-17 00:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Pete is completely full of piss and vinegar and crap in every
interview he's ever done.
The only person in rock who's ever lied through his teeth as much as
Pete is Dylan.
I don't know if it's lying, at least not most of the time. There are
moments where I think he made it up and just wants to see what kind of
reaction he can get, but there are other occasions where I suspect he
believes what he's saying (at least when he says it) even though it
contradicts something he said in another interview. It's also got to be a
problem for someone who has had so much written about him and his work to
completely break away from what other people have said, there must be times
when the encyclopedia entry seems like a better story than what actually
happened. I'd bet folding money that Keith Richards' recent autobiography
relied heavily on research in press clippings and other people's books as it
contains things that have become part of The Legend Of Keef but which we can
be reasonably certain did not actually happen. So if Keith can't recall for
sure, why not tell a story that is already in a dozen books and magazine
articles? Maybe that's happened a time or two with Pete too.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Of course, to Dylan, it's all a joke. And I mean it's ALL a joke.
Once the songs are written, Dylan sets out to make more fun of them
(and his audience) than anyone else can.
I've long believed Dylan gets a kick out of making his more earnest fans
gulp and step back in horror, the Victoria's Secret ad for example.
s***@comcast.net
2011-09-19 13:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
I've long believed Dylan gets a kick out of making his more earnest fans
gulp and step back in horror, the Victoria's Secret ad for example.
In concert, you can tell which songs Dylan wants to put across as best
he can, and which ones he is deliberately mangling.

Ted Maloney
2011-09-18 00:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by keifspoon
Post by Me
I'm hoping, but doubtful that when Pete's autobiography comes out next
year that he'll be straight and tell us all exactly what he thought of
post-1978 Who.
How much worse can it be from all the stuff he's said about the
pre-1979 Who?
Exactly, Pete is the most vicious critic of the band on earth.  Then he'll
turn around and rhapsodize about the band.  One day he hates the fans, the
next they're the reason he writes and plays music.  He slams himself without
mercy, then he boasts about his great work.  The guy is a walking bundle of
contradictions, the one constant is he cares about the music or he wouldn't
get so worked up over it.
Yeah, I love Pete too.
Loading...