How many a U read about The Who in Rolling Stone?
 

They got a small article in the Rolling Stone I got in the mail that said that Pete and Roger had begun work on their first studio album since 1982. Pete has been writing songs that he hopes Daltrey and himself can begin recording in early 05. It says if you go to his website you'll see that he's chosen the title of <i>Who2</i> for the album and that it would be preceded by a US tour in the first half of the year with the band. They recrueted the help of bassist <b>Pino Palladino</b> and drummer <b>Zak Starkey</b> to accompany them on the tour.

It also states in another small article right next to it that some lost Velvet Underground tracks have been found for those of you who are fans of them as well. Long lost versions of Velvet Underground songs - "<b>Heroin</b>," "<b>Venus In Furs</b>," and "<b>I'm Waiting for the Man</b>" - have surfaced. A collector bought a fragile acetate record at a Manhattan flea market for 75 cents. It says the disc was pressed when Velvet were still looking for a label and it also contains alternate mixes of most of the groups debut album <i>The Velvet Underground and Nico</i> from 1967. A Velvets expert says "This would be their first album as it was intended to be released before the band started second guessing it." It says Universal is looking into purchasing the record from the collector with eyes toward a CD release.

Thats all.

Asta!!

Keith and John are dead. There is no Who.

Zak Starkey...as in Ringo's son? i guess Jason Bonham was busy lol.

Let go of the dream guys, it's over.....

It wouldn't be the same and would just be a stab in the dark at trying to revive something that should be left alone imo

Bands shouldn't tarnish their career like that. It will inevitabley let the fans down. Led Zeppelin? Bleh. The Doors? Bleh. The original lineup is gone forever, there is no use trying to bring it back.

I'll complain when I hear what they come up with. If it's good then why bitch about it.

I don't admit it a lot because of the friends I keep but The Who are, to me, the best band ever.

You still have Roger and Pete..they wrote the songs..they both have done great solo work so the possibility of this album actually being good probably isn't that low. Only thing that could fuck it up is if they try to modernise it like so many other bands do and it doesn't sound right. Replacing John and Keith is impossible but they're just making another album...not really replacing them. The Who really are one of if not THE best band ever. Wouldn't be the first time a band came back and came back well lets just hope this is another one of those times.

Gene Simmons was once asked if Kiss could go on without the original members and he said "The band as a whole is bigger than it's individual members so yes. Think about what bands that still did well without their original members...The Beatles..Sorry folks Ringo wasn't an original Member, etc." and he's right. AC/DC, Metallica, Pink Floyd, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc. have all gone on without their original members and still made great albums.

Asta!!

I saw Umphrey's McGee a few weeks back. They covered Baba O'Riley during thier encore. Boy did they nailed it. They played it with more energy and style than The Who did when i saw them on there last U.S. tour.

As for Old Velvet Underground stuff....bring it on

I suppose I shouldn't bitch about until I hear it, but it just seems like is going to be dissapointing. I just worry because The Who really is one of the greatest bands ever, and I would hate to see their legacy tarnished the way "The Doors" is right now.

Obviously, I'm a big Who fan, so I'm biased. I've listened to both of the new songs ("Real Good Looking Boy" and "Old Red Wine"). They're both good - not amazing, but good - and neither tarnish the history of the Who. I miss John and Keith immensely. But I fully support the two of them continuing on, and calling it The Who, Who2, or whatever the fuck they want. Life is too short not to continue collaborations like the one that Roger and Pete have. Pete writes the songs, Roger gives them heart. It's that simple. A listen to both of the new songs confirm it. If they can sustain that, then more power to them.

I've seen them in every tour they've done in the past 8 years or so. They still are on fire when they play. Pete is playing better than he has since the 1970s, no doubt about it. Zak is an unbelievable freaking drummer - he has the spirit of Keith deep inside his soul (Keith gave him his first drum set, actually) and complements the band perfectly. It sucks not to have John there. Pino, while excellent, doesn't bring anything new to the table. Perhaps that's intentional, given John's amazing bass lines - but we'll see what happens with the new stuff.

Even if they release something and it sucks - why should it tarnish their legacy? Does it cause you to enjoy their previous music any less?

It's like I wrote it myself...

I'm also excited about the missing Velvet Underground stuff too...