Q&A

‘ endless wire to the Who

By Michael Senft
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC

With a resume that includes such classic
rock albums as Tommy and Quadrophenia,
the Who doesn’t need an excuse to tour.
But after 25 years of on-again, off-again re-
unions and the 2002 death of bassist John
Entwistle, a new Who concert is greeted
with some skepticism.

Until you give the band‘s new CD a spin,
that is.

Endless Wire, the band’s first disc since
1982’s I t’s Hard. is a strong reaffirmation
of the group's legacy. filled with thunder-
ous vocals from Roger Daltrey and some of
guitarist Pete Townshend’s sharpest song-
wrltmg in 30 years.

We recently conducted an e-mail con—
versation with Townshend about Endless
Wire and the band’s new tour, which visits
US Airways Center on Wednesday.

Question: With the numerous reunions
since the ’82 Farewell tour, many people
had written off the Who as a creative unit.
Was there a sense of trying to prove the
naysayers wrong with E ndless Wire?

Answer: Nay. There is no question in
my mind that I left the Who in 1982, and
as far as I was concerned, that was that. I
was in an absolute creative dilemma with
the band and the brand. Roger never let
up, as he says himself — he nagged con-
stantly and to some extent so did fans. So
reunion events were really just that,
chances to get together and attempt to
show the willingness to do the holiday—sea-
son thing. For me creatively. the Who were
always a possibility, but one that became
more and more remote as time passed.

What happened to produce the songs
for Endless Wire was sudden, unexpected
and quite strange. I had played Roger a
few new songs here and there, in response
to his constant, self-confessed bugging that
we should try to make one more great re-
cord (and, of course, it’s good to be
wanted!). But his reaction had been cool.
When John died, and my only client was
Roger, I was able to focus more tightly. I
decided to stop flying songs past Roger (in
a kind of audition process) and just start
making a record that he could react to, al-
most like an editor who performs. That
worked, and thus the use of the Who
brand itself became the subject of some
scrutiny. The two of us decided that we
had to accept who we were, but also who
we had been, and what happens whenever
we stand together. The Who, in stripped-
down form, was reborn.

Q: Listening to Endless Wire, my first
thought was how much it felt like the
Who‘s early ’705 output - Who’s Next to
Who Are You. But then I noticed how
much I missed the bottom end on the al-
bum. What was it like recording without
John Entwistle?

A: Remember, too, that we live in CD
land now — little. tinny CDs. It was hard
getting John‘s sound onto a CD. He had
such a massive sound, it's hard to replicate,
and it could be wrong to try. John would
have listened to my demo bass lines (as he
always did) and played his own amazing
versions of them, with flourishes, addi-

Artists “are shameless," Pete Townshend says.
“We will do anything to see you smile.”

tional depth and harmonics and a huge, fat
sound.

Q: Much of your work, especially on
Endless Wire. seems very personal. How
does it feel to have those lyrics sung by
someone else?

A: I’m glad it feels personal, but it is not
as rooted in me personally as it seems. A
lot of my most reflective songs were ac—
tually about the band, each of us, and what
we were going through. Because I was the
songwriter, I got the credit or the blame.
As for who sings what, I want Roger to
sing it all. What he is uncomfortable with I
happily sing.

Q: Many older bands put out a new al-
bum. then barely give it credence live. But
you guys are tackling the bulk of Endless
Wire. How are the audiences reacting to
the new material?

A: The audiences are being gracious. Ra-
dio is being pretty good. too, but everything
has changed since our last album as the
Who. We are playing what we feel is a rea-
sonable balance and getting a good reac-
tion.

Q: You seem to teeter between writing
epic suites and stand-alone songs. Endless
Wire has both — shorter songs, like Black
Widow’s Eyes, and the “Wire 8: Glass”
mini-opera. Is it easier to write a stand-
alone song or one that fits into a larger
narrative?

A: Having a story helps me a lot, I write
much more from the hip when I have a
theme underpinning my songwriting. On
the other hand, sometimes songs just land
from nowhere, and it is only later that I re-
alize they, too. come from some thesis I’ve
been dragging around. I don‘t have a lot of
new ideas. My old ideas were so extraor—
dinary for the young man I was. my teach-
ers so smart, that I feel I should simply
continue to honor the job.

Q: Do you plan on doing more recording
as the Who?

A: No plan as of today, but if I write
some songs, I will record them and see
what happens.

Q: What was your reaction to Won’t Get
Fooled Again becoming a 9/11 anthem?

A: It was appropriate. The song is about
a refusal to be bullied into what to vote,
what to think and what to do if attacked.
It is not so much a conservative song as
one that is against bullying self-righteous-
ness. After 9/11, what was needed was not
vengeance but a message that we would
not stand for suicide terrorism. We might
not be able to prevent it, but we would
never be fooled into thinking that, because
our system is not perfect, we are in some
way evil. I have never felt Islamic bombers
were evil, just wrong. If someone calls me
Satan, they are (expletive) nuts, because,
actually, I’m a man from West London.

Q: About 15 years ago, you were having
trouble with tinnitus and there was talk of
you not being able to play electric guitar
live anymore. What are you doing to pro-
tect your hearing now?

A: I’m probably not doing the best thing
— which is not to play music at all. I tried
that. In fact, 1 reduced the Who’s stage
volume from 1989 onwards. I’ve always
had an acoustic flair. Behind Blue Eyes,
Won’t Get Fooled Again and Pinball Wiz-
ard — if I play those songs on acoustic,
they sound pretty strong. I play electric
guitar very differently today. I take care
not to deafen myself or anyone else.

Q: As someone who has had a strong
Internet presence for years, how do you
see the Internet driving the music industry
in the coming years?

A: Driving it? Exploiting it. At least
MySpace and YouTube fall into that cate-
gory. Even iTunes is not entirely fair; Ap-
ple set their own price structure that bears
no reflection whatsoever on the cost of
making music. Musicians and music are
regarded as worthless these days. Their
work can be picked up free and shared.
They are less valued than bottled water

A performance of mine on YouTube
might attract a hundred thousand hits and
I wouldn’t get a cent. It’s a form of theft.
The people who run YouTube will be mul-
tibillionaires. They are all copyright thieves
equal to the Chinese in their flagrant disre-
gard of creative talent and its value.

Even so, I love YouTube. In away, it is
first and foremost enthusiast-driven pro-
motion. The problem is that it is OK for
the Who — we can sell out a big ball and
pay the rent and the mortgage. We can
stand some theft. New musicians are really
struggling.

Artists really are prostitutes now. But I
always said they were. People looked at me
as though I was mad. We stand naked. We
want approval. We want recognition. Sadly,
this desire makes us vulnerable. Rock and
roll (read all pop music) is a huge bonfire

onto which young people queue up to
throw themselves. Line after line of them.

It has always been that way. We are
shameless. We will do anything to see you
smile. Anything for a halfway good review.
The Internet has simply revealed what I
have always known about myself. If no one
is willing to pay for what I create. I would
rather give it away free than keep it hid-

den.

Reach the reporter at
michael.scnfi@arizonarepublic.com
or (602) 444-8489.