So would it be okay for McCartney to start up a new band and call it The Beatles?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The Who new album
- Thread starter J Gold
- Start date
I have multiple reactions to that idea.
a) If he wanted to, sure, why not? C'mon, he's Paul shaging McCartney.
b) The situations are different. The Beatles broke up long before we lost John and George. The Who never did conclusively end (in spite of multiple "farewell" tours).
c) If I was feeling contentious I would argue that a lead singer and principal songwriter have a greater claim to a band name than the surviving half of a legendary writing team. But see a).
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Not the same.
1. The Who still have two original members, the two most visually prominent members and the songwriter.
2. The Beatles broke up, and all 4 had solo careers lasting longer than the band did. Although Daltrey and Townsend have had solo hits, it was always a side project. Further, the Who never broke up. Both Moon and Entwistle were replaced one at a time, and only when they died.
- Feb 8, 2005
- 3,636
- 1,053
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Bag End - Dean Markley - Thunderfunk
This kind of topic is interesting. I remember when I was younger, being very upset that Led Zeppelin broke up after the death of John Bonham. I of course wanted "the band" to continue, and could not really understand the mentality of Page saying "it wouldn't be the same". Now, later I find myself in more agreement with that type of mindset.
I try to imagine, for example Rush continuing without Neil Peart. Anyone that knows anything about this band (I assume) would think this is completely absurd…it cannot be Rush without those three guys, period. I think with any band, there are some members that are more replaceable than others and that's just a fact of life. Then, there are some bands in which every member is critical, like Led Zeppelin. I think Jimmy Page made the right call and Pete and Roger did not.
Don't get me wrong, they both absolutely have the right to continue making original music. They of course also have the right to continue to call it "The Who" but I do not believe they should. Pete Townshend is a gifted composer and his body of work is impressive. But IMO "The Who" doesn't exist anymore. Nor do The Beatles or Led Zeppeln or Yes. Go on making music with a new lineup and new name. I get why it's often done the way it is, and I can respect it; I just don't agree.
I try to imagine, for example Rush continuing without Neil Peart. Anyone that knows anything about this band (I assume) would think this is completely absurd…it cannot be Rush without those three guys, period. I think with any band, there are some members that are more replaceable than others and that's just a fact of life. Then, there are some bands in which every member is critical, like Led Zeppelin. I think Jimmy Page made the right call and Pete and Roger did not.
Don't get me wrong, they both absolutely have the right to continue making original music. They of course also have the right to continue to call it "The Who" but I do not believe they should. Pete Townshend is a gifted composer and his body of work is impressive. But IMO "The Who" doesn't exist anymore. Nor do The Beatles or Led Zeppeln or Yes. Go on making music with a new lineup and new name. I get why it's often done the way it is, and I can respect it; I just don't agree.
Same artist for both covers, and as Weller stole from the Who first I suppose turnabout is fair play.
Still...
Still...
I'd pay to see Paul+Ringo+Pete+Roger, whatever they might call it. FWIW.
The Who reformed to subsidize John's coke habit. It staved off Big John from having to sell off his intrument collection while he was alive.
Once he shed his mortal coil, that's another story.
Macca wasn't the only writer in the Beatles.
John wrote more than a few, Roger rarely writes.
Keep in mind Pete and Roger had nothing to do with Keith and John leaving to start new bands, they left the PLANET.
Do the the remaining members have the right to use the name?
Might be a different story had members left for greener pastures.
Actually, as I read it, Pete invested huge amounts in upgrading the Who's touring capabilities for Who Are You, and the corporation was so cash poor as a result that it was decided that they couldn't scrub all their plans regardless of Keith's sudden demise. Keith died in Sept 78, and The Who were onstage with Kenny Jones by the following May. In fact, Townshend released a statement vowing to continue the band the day after Keith died.
I like the video, and the song certainly sounds very WHO-ish to me. Probably the most intentionally-retro-Who-ish thing I've heard yet. I think that 'song' is a bit of a throwaway, (lyrics are kind of awkwardly social-conscious, perhaps?) but no complaints about the performance of it.
Incidentally, I've got every single WHO record and bootleg in existence; I started collecting them back when Who By Numbers came out (which is still one of my personal top three Who LPS, along with Quadrophenia and Who are You). I've only seen them live twice (It's Hard tour in Seattle[AMAZING], and the most-recent tour in Vancouver [EVEN BETTER])... no... - technically three times - but I tore up my ticket stub and walked out in disgust on the (early 90s?) Vancouver tour around the time of "Face The Face" - wanted the quartet experience, was thoroughly unimpressed with the huge horn section and all the dancers on that tour!!).
Anyway for me, their latest tour was mainly awesome due to the high quality of the arrangements - Pete's brother was really nailing the various extra guitar parts and backing vocals off the record there. If they keep on with that quality ethos, then I think their show is always gonna be worth the hundred bux.
Forgive the blasphemy, but I think The Who was a better band with John and Zac Starkey than with Keith—and the live Quadraphenia video shows that starkly. [Kenny Jones was an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.] John always said he could make any band sound like The Who and there's considerable truth in that. I still don't enjoy the two-wheeled tricycle.
I like the video, and the song certainly sounds very WHO-ish to me. Probably the most intentionally-retro-Who-ish thing I've heard yet. I think that 'song' is a bit of a throwaway, (lyrics are kind of awkwardly social-conscious, perhaps?) but no complaints about the performance of it.
Incidentally, I've got every single WHO record and bootleg in existence; I started collecting them back when Who By Numbers came out (which is still one of my personal top three Who LPS, along with Quadrophenia and Who are You). I've only seen them live twice (It's Hard tour in Seattle[AMAZING], and the most-recent tour in Vancouver [EVEN BETTER])... no... - technically three times - but I tore up my ticket stub and walked out in disgust on the (early 90s?) Vancouver tour around the time of "Face The Face" - wanted the quartet experience, was thoroughly unimpressed with the huge horn section and all the dancers on that tour!!).
Anyway for me, their latest tour was mainly awesome due to the high quality of the arrangements - Pete's brother was really nailing the various extra guitar parts and backing vocals off the record there. If they keep on with that quality ethos, then I think their show is always gonna worth the hundred bux.
I have a friend who is also a Who live tape collector and he maintains that one of the band's best hidden secrets is all the blistering live fretwork Pete has busted out over the years. Do you agree with that? And if so, where would you steer the casual fan to hear such fare online? thanks!
Hmm.. there is some hot guitar work in concerts yeah. Most of my bootlegs are colored vinyl pressings from the 70s/80s - not sure where they can be found online - probably lots on youtube? Dunno if anything I have heard on bootleg really outshines the sheer magic of LIVE AT LEEDS though
I guess that what you are saying makes sense in some ways. On the other hand, a band is the overall product of the contributors. IMHO there is a huge synergy factor especially when you are talking about a four piece band. Take away half and the magic that made it all happen is usually lost. That synergy/magic is what made the original WHO the great band that it was. I think that most anyone who has played in lots of bands would agree that it is all about chemistry. That is why the original WHO band (or any other band that has become ironically famous) made it and the thousands of other bands who were struggling for success along the way didn't.
The reason that THE WHO made it wasn't because one or two of them held all the cards and the others were along for the ride. They were a great band because they had a winning combination of players, timing, energy and being in the right place at the right time.
I wish Roger and Peter great success with their new product. Even though they can never be what was...
they are still playing, working and moving forward. I respect that and will most likely buy their new release just to support them.
Hmm.. there is some hot guitar work in concerts yeah. Most of my bootlegs are colored vinyl pressings from the 70s/80s - not sure where they can be found online - probably lots on youtube? Dunno if anything I have heard on bootleg really outshines the sheer magic of LIVE AT LEEDS though
cool about the 70's colored vinyl, Man. I grew up scouring the Capitol Records Swap Meet for Trademark of Quality Bootlegs. No doubt you've read Clinton Heylin's great tome "BOOTLEG: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE OTHER RECORDING INDUSTRY." Good stuff!
