Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheTallOne

Is Townshed a Who Sellout?

Recommended Posts

He's like that about everything, hit or not. He's most protective of his catalog. Reagan also wanted to use that song for his second term campaign, but Bruce declined. Apparently Ronnie didn't actually get the meaning of the song...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ambivalent towards the concept of "selling out." I've had similar discussions with music fans for years and I've come to the conclusion that, in the end, we all sell out - we all work for a living and musicians are no different. However, I do reserve the right to loathe artists for their actions and affiliations. Knowing that pete townshend paid to subscribe to see pictures of children being sexually abused is a good enough reason for me to not pay for his work, or listen to it, or care for it. I also can't listen to aerosmith and a few other bands and artists for various reasons. Well, I can listen to their music, but I loathe them anyway, and will never think of giving them a dime for their music.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/369994p-314735c.html

Guess what? The guy who paid these sell-outs to show up for the bat mitzvah is a death-merchant. His company allegedly sold defective bullet-proof vests to our army in Iraq, thereby literally making a killing in profits, and now we see this low-life shaking hands with tom petty, stevie nicks, and steve tyler (hey, isn't steve tyler the guy who adopted a 13-year old so he could have sex with her? Man, talk about "living on the edge" there... or maybe I'm thinking of the wrong frontman).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing that pete townshend paid to subscribe to see pictures of children being sexually abused is a good enough reason for me to not pay for his work, or listen to it, or care for it.

Ok, I just have to respond to this. I don't know if you know it or not, but yes was arrested and brought to court, but he was also cleared of all charges in that trial. Even though his name will remain on a Sex Offenders list for a few years, he has been released and not jailed or fined or anything. He didn't pay for that stuff because he liked it, but because he did research for a book he was writing. I have the parts he had already written, they are available for free on his website. He contacted the FBI (I believe it was the FBI, might be that it was only "normal" police, but I'm fairly certain) before he did research and used his credit card because of course he knew that if anyone found out about itm he'd need a damn good explanation. Which he had.

Yes, it was stupid, but he is not guilty, did it for a good cause and in my eyes this is no reason to boycott his work. Had he been guilty, yes, but not like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shadow of doubt has already been cast. That's some really poor judgment pete's got. It would be like doing "research" on illegal drugs by going out to buy them. Any normal person would've been locked-up for a couple of years for the same thing pete got caught doing. It's the way lawmen and police always say when they catch people doing something illegal, "Ignorance is no excuse."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd say it's difficult to write a book about something like abuse of children without actually knowing what happens, and in my eyes this is less difficult with drugs. As I said, he admitted it was stupid.

One way or the other, this doesn't change the fact that he is innocent in a certain way. And even though the shadow of doubt has been cast as you say, he still deserves trust and respect as a musician, and perhaps as a private person as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd say it's difficult to write a book about something like abuse of children without actually knowing what happens, and in my eyes this is less difficult with drugs. As I said, he admitted it was stupid.

One way or the other, this doesn't change the fact that he is innocent in a certain way. And even though the shadow of doubt has been cast as you say, he still deserves trust and respect as a musician, and perhaps as a private person as well.

Well, I suppose if you give credibility to the explanation that he was merely involved in researching his book about child abuse...Conventionally, books on this subject tend to be written by experts in the fields of child psychology / childrens' social work, etc. rather than pop-musicians, but there y'go. There are already plenty such text-books in existence; some of which may provide graphic descriptions of abuse, if one really needs to find out "what happens".

It may be easier to defend this position if you happen to be a fan of the man and his music. I think you'd find it considerably more difficult if your sister happened to be "star of the show" he was paying to view.

I think "an error of judgement" is putting it rather too mildly, myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's easier for me to defend him, but let me say that apart from the music he makes and writes, I'm no fan of the man himself. I rarely agree with what he says and does and seldom share his point of view.

That said, I think the part of the book that he's published on his website explains some more about why he decided to write a book about it. Some reasons he gave are that he has been abused himself as a child, that he feels people don't pay enough attention to the problem, and he tells the story of a woman he knew who was abused and later killed herself because of what she went through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

steve tyler (hey, isn't steve tyler the guy who adopted a 13-year old so he could have sex with her? Man, talk about "living on the edge" there... or maybe I'm thinking of the wrong frontman).

BA, I think that was Ted Nugent. I seem to remember that from some Behind the Music special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

steve tyler also did this. He took legal custody of a girl "groupie" in order to have sex with her. I remember reading about this before, but a lot of it has been deleted now to the point that all one can find are music boards that talk about it.

http://www.rockthisway.de/news/news_july00.htm

From Kerrang magazine

This was in Kerrang this week. The article was about the A to Z of rock and roll decadence.

U IS FOR UNDERAGE

When you're a successful rock star, all notions of decency tend to be tossed away like a tv through a hotel window. Rock stars inevitably attarct younger fans, and many don't let something as trivial as morals get in the way of there libido.

One man guilty of just that was Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler. According to Stephen Davis's official biography Walk this way, Tyler gave little more than an autograph to a girl who had barely stepped into the spot light of puberty. The year was 1975. 18 mounths of constant road work had elevated (the smiths) into the big league. Back stage at a successful Seattle show the 27 year front mans eye was caught by a 14 year old girl named Diana Hall " a skinny young mall- chick who was beautiful and had more legs than a bucket of chicken". " she was there with a bunch of her girlfriends and they were being bi sexual to get my attention, and I was aroused to no end Tyler told Davis". "Nothing turns me on like being in a room with 2 women. All men think about it but few have done it. It is the most beautiful thing, like being between mothers breasts". The pair fell in love and Tyler moved her into her Boston appartment so that they could be together- but only after Halls parents signed her over to Tyler as her guardian, A costly legal process. unfortunately, there relationship crashed to its end after three years, when Tyler drug addiction took hold and his young consort fell pregnant. they split up shortly after the abortion. "Diana lost her childhood," recounted the singer sadly," and I lost my mind."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a teenager, I used moral relativism in order to argue with my parents, but now that I'm old I just see steve for what he did, which was molest a kid and I can't get around it whenever I listen to any of aerosmith's music. ted nugent also did this, but I think the chick was around 16. This is a grey area since some states here in the US might allow it.

http://www.artistfacts.com/detail.php?id=44

He had a relationship with a 17-year old Hawaiian girl when he was 30. He became her legal guardian in order to comply with laws regarding relationships with minors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're pissed about The Who selling out, you probably haven't heard "The Who Sell Out".

Besides, selling out is the only way Daltrey can get money.

Deal with it.

The_who_sell_out_album_front.jpg

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually found a source to back up my claim...

"Why review The Who again so soon after the last review? Quite simply, this is one of the most eagerly awaited CD re-releases since the format was invented. The album had been previously issued on CD in the USA, the subject of an earlier Making Time review, but this is the UK version of the album which does differ slightly. Furthermore, it is a double CD with numerous additional tracks, some of which may not have been released previously in the UK.

This is an album with a chequered history that arose from a long-running dispute between the Who and Shel Talmy, the album's producer. It is best to know the basics of this to understand why it has been probably the hardest to obtain of any classic album. The short version is as follows. Shel Talmy was the Who's original producer who had already worked with the Kinks on the likes of You Really Got Me. He was impressed when he saw a Who gig in London and looked to capture that live energy in the group's recorded sound. From this point the first classic hits emerged in I Can't Explain and Anyway Anyhow Anywhere.

As well as playing numerous gigs, the band spent a lot of time in the studio recording elements of the live act as new Townsend songs. However, a rift developed between the band and Talmy, possibly due to the level of control that the producer seemed to be exerting and the lack of original material in the tracks being recorded. Consequently, the Who wanted to get rid of Talmy. The immediate effect was that the release of Circles/Instant Party Mixture was cancelled. The band started to record without Talmy and arranged the release of Substitute on Reaction Records. Both Circles and Instant Party were recorded and were, at times, b-sides to the new single.

Shel Talmy's reaction was to take the Who to court as he had a contractual right to record the band that extended as far as a four-year option on future recordings. He also arranged for A Legal Matter / Circles to be released as a spoiler. The Kids are Alright and La La La Lies were also released by Talmy on the Brunswick label. The band remained relatively unaware of the extent of the situation financially until they realised that they were not receiving many royalties, even from Tommy, and that most of the money was heading towards Talmy. Talmy still owned the My Generation recordings and this prevented their release in the UK although there was a release of the album by Virgin some years back."

http://www.makingtime.co.uk/cdrev102002.html

Long story short, Townshed isn't the sellout. It's the whole band, and, they're busy getting screwed by a bad record move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my doubts about whether they have money troubles because they didn't get a lot of money from their first album, it's not like it was their only success. It was only the beginning, and they didn't stay with that label.

They had other albums, lots of tours, and as I think Pete Townshend said quite frankly they did the world tour in the 80s (can't remember which one) simply to make money. I won't pretend that I believe that they are rich or got rich from releasing albums, but I've expressed my opinion on that somewhere in this thread already, I believe.

I take it that by "the whole band" you mean Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey, and while I don't know anything about Daltrey's take on that matter because he hasn't said anything in public about it that I know of, I am quite certain that Townshend is mainly responsible for the Who selling the rights for their songs to TV series and commercials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if anything, it's more Daltrey than it is Townshed. The point is, the band did not make a lot of money and had to tour just to make a decent share. Their "greatest" hits just so happened to be the ones that they get the least money from.

Just because they're rock stars don't make 'em rich.

My two favourite bands are Queen and The Who (seein' 'em this October), so, well, I know my facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it happens the Who are my favourite band too and I'm afraid I'm in the same situation as you. I think I know my facts too.

If you think you can prove me wrong, do so and I'll happily accept that. So far, it doesn't look like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try to be a voice of reason. The Who are also one of my favorites (if not favorite), and I have never heard Daltry comment on the subject, yet Townshend seems to be very vocal on all subjects related to the band. At last count there were about 15 songs used in some sort of advertising, and it seems as if this number is rising by the day. There is also little doubt in my mind that Pete Townshend benefited from almost everyone, and Daltry is merely along for the ride. As for for knowing the facts, The Who are not one of Fintan's favorite bands, but his absolute favorite, and I believe his information before anyone elses. If there is information to prove me wrong, I would gladly accept it, but I highly doubt there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiralling off... what was the deal with Brain Jones and a 13 year old girl and the girl's mother and Brian Jones' son?

I've never heard this about Brian ,Levis . You may be confusing him with former Stones ' bassist Bill Wyman who married a girl ( during the '80s) when she was 19 , though the relationship started when she was 13 ; he was 47 - and his son later married the girl's mother ( she 46 ; he 30 ) . Bill's marriage only lasted a year , but had it continued , his son would've been his own grandpa ( his father's father-in-law ) ! :P :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard this about Brian ,Levis . You may be confusing him with former Stones ' bassist Bill Wyman who married a girl ( during the '80s) when she was 19 , though the relationship started when she was 13 ; he was 47 - and his son later married the girl's mother ( she 46 ; he 30 ) . Bill's marriage only lasted a year , but had it continued , his son would've been his own grandpa ( his father's father-in-law ) ! :P :laughing:

Yes, i am... I just figured it out while looking at the answers to the SF quiz :blush: Luckily, I never claimed to know a lot about the Stones! :P

It creeps me out anyway... WHAT did he see in a 13 year old girl?(Rhetorical question) That's too young to have outgrown being a pest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...