Pete Townsend interview - "Mick does actually organise every little detail of the tour, while Ronnie and Keith just have to decide whether they're going to get drunk or not" new


On stage, I feel like the goalkeeper
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 14/12/2006Page 1 of 2




Pete Townshend tells Neil McCormick about the pomp and egos of the Who, and the humiliation of his arrest over child-pornography

Video: The Who live in Locarno, Switzerland

Pete Townshend makes a spinning windmill of his right arm before crashing down on a power chord; Roger Daltrey lets out a full-throated roar and the audience all punch the air at the same time, thousands of men, women and children, from their teens to retirement age, united in a communal bellow: "I hope I die before I get old!" Now in their 60s, the Who still speak to their generation, and several others, with a rare directness.


On stage, Townshend is an aggressively physical performer
"I understand now where the power of this music comes from," the chief composer of this sonic revolt later asserts in the quiet gloom of his touring Winnebago. "It's the aftermath of a great world war and how our generation dealt with that.

"When I was four I lived in a house where 12 people had died. We played in bomb sites, we'd find bits of bodies, skeletons and watches every day. We grew up in the shadow of this horrible bomb that had brought the war to an end. So it was never going to be about making beautiful music with an electric guitar, it was about trying to evoke the sound of trouble, the sound of anguish."

It is a sound that, to Townshend's self-confessed surprise, has remained relevant. "I thought rock would be gone by now, although I had no idea what would replace it. I'm interested in our continuing need for angry, powerful, strong, aggressive music, which seems to fit an adolescent frame of reference. It must have a function."

Figuring out that function is what makes Townshend tick. Having just walked off stage from a second triumphant night at the Hollywood Bowl, he happily leaves Daltrey to meet and greet the stars of Tinseltown at the after-show party, while he retreats into digressive, discursive conversation, spinning out theories and gnawing at ideas with the relentlessness of someone whose mind never stops ticking.

advertisementOn stage, Townshend is an aggressively physical performer, but with his guitar back in its case, his intellect come to the fore. "It's a method, really, the way I play," he muses. "Trying to wring sound out of feedback and fuzzboxes, wrenching the guitar and banging it – every now and again you get the most miraculous accidents."

But the veteran rocker also admits to less artistic reasons for the onstage activity. "I never get nervous before shows, so I keep moving to keep myself interested. Otherwise, it's a little bit detached."

Despite the death of two founding members (drummer Keith Moon in 1978; bassist John Entwhistle in 2002) and a 24-year absence from the recording studio, in 2006 the Who returned to the fray with Endless Wire, an album that is almost belligerently complex; lyrically verbose yet, at times, thrillingly exciting.

"Roger and I made a decision to stick with the Who, knowing that even if we decided not to use the brand name it would hover like a ghost anyway."

However, he admits frankly to reservations about the whole band concept. "I spoke to Mick Jagger on the phone the other day – the Stones were going into rehearsal in Boston. I said, 'How's it going?' and he said, 'Er, all right.' I said, 'How's Keith?' 'All right.' 'How's Ronnie?' 'All right.' And I said, 'So how are you?' And he said, 'Well, I'm still doing f***ing everything.' Mick does actually organise every little detail of the tour, while Ronnie and Keith just have to decide whether they're going to get drunk or not, that's the big decision of the day. Yet the Stones are Mick's gang, he's stuck with them.

"Roger and I aren't a gang anymore, we're just friends and creative partners. I think Roger misses it, but it wasn't very nice a lot of the time. The sheer force of having four personalities whose ego and energy was applied to the recording process made it worth the struggle, because there were moments when it was really extraordinary and wonderful, but most of the time it was a very, very difficult band to be in. Now [with the touring band] I can hear the same music but it's so much easier."

Although Townshend declined to use the band in the studio ("It would not have been a band – they would require instruction and guidance") and played most of the instruments himself, the album really does sound like classic Who. "The way I shape chords or work with keyboard patterns gives a certain stamp of the Who sound. But when Roger adds his vocal and turns it into a bravura performance, that's when it becomes something else.

"I've started to realise that the Who in our live heyday were quite a musically pompous band, like Queen. A lot of that came from Roger finding that if he was heroic as a singer he got a better response than being cool or sexy. His philosophy is that a great rock singer doesn't necessarily have to sing in tune. A bum note and a bead of sweat will do.

"Roger's still very much obsessed with masculinity, physicality, he wants to present the music. Onstage with the Who I feel just like a goalkeeper. Every now and again I have to wake up – here's the ball, OK. Then back to limbering up, keeping an eye on the game, because he really does carry the focus of the audience."

That audience has stuck with Townshend through difficult times, ensuring the Who remained one of the world's top live draws despite the shadow cast over their leader in 2003, when Townshend was arrested and cautioned for using his credit card to access a child pornography website.

While most observers have accepted Townshend's defence that he was engaged in research as part of a long-standing campaign against child pornography, a sense of what he felt at the centre of the controversy surfaces in a song on the new album inspired by Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. "When I saw the film, what I think I felt was pain, and I think it was my pain," he volunteers. "It was the unbelievable f***ing humiliation that I'd been through when I was arrested."

advertisementIt was not a subject I was particularly intent on raising during the interview, yet Townshend kept returning to it, notably when I made the observation that this new incarnation of the Who were celebratory rather than angry, the old tensions of performance seemingly gone.

"I used to find stuff on the internet and go into the most incredible rage at the idea of something as pointless as the male economics of masturbation, that the pornography industry should be so careless about vulnerable individuals, whether they're children or just models," he says.

Referring back to his own memories of abandonment and abuse, he says: "There was a huge anger there, and I think a lot of it came out when I performed. But having technically committed a crime in the process of research, I remember suddenly feeling, 'I really do have to stop this. I have to stop being angry.' "

And then, revealing that he wrote a symbolic letter of forgiveness to the deceased relative he held most responsible for his childhood traumas, he makes an admission that seems to surprise even him. "I suppose for a while I thought that maybe I would re-channel the anger back into my performing work, but the trouble is I wasn't angry any more. It says something for forgiveness and it does make for a happier Pete, I suppose. Not that it's incredibly useful."

Usefulness, to Townshend, is still of paramount concern, and he talks of how a New York benefit concert for September 11 victims showed him how a grown-up Who might fit into the world. "The very idea of acknowledging being grown-up flies in the face of 'I hope I die before I get old'. There is a temptation to hang on to the fact that you can behave childishly and foolishly as a performer, simply because you're allowed to, and then it becomes immortalised and revisited.

"Pete Doherty is now a great big baby. If he came out wearing a nappy tied up by Kate Moss none of us would be surprised, we'd just think it was the latest cool thing. But then I went on stage and it was people in uniform who had been hauling bodies out of buildings and suddenly I thought, 'We have a job here.' I realised why we are gonna be good at this job, because it is where we started, playing on bomb sites.

'Moments like the 9/11 concert, where you put the music and the audience together in the midst of tragedy, and suddenly we have this palliative, pure way of conveying empathy, solidarity, love, with no possibility of a solution – that is what rock is about.

"We have a problem here, we will never be able to solve it, but hey, for three and a half minutes, let's dance. What could be more magical than that? We live in the moment. We meditate. Our music, our method, everything about what we do allows us to spend brief periods in the moment. We are the new Buddhists!"

Townshend laughs with delight at this idea. "In a way, we're higher than Buddhists, because we don't need to pretend that we feel no anger. This music fits the world. It fits the temperature of the planet, so that's why it won't go away. It's very effective."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-14 19:47 by bv.

Good interview.


Interesting view of Mick and his "anger" towards the other bandmates not getting involved. Well he does have Charlie also, but it's a shame Keith dumps all the responsibility on Mick. Would Keith know what to do if he took more charge? Prolly not.

I suspect Mick really prefers having the control and wouldn't much like it if it were any other way.

Beast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suspect Mick really prefers having the control
> and wouldn't much like it if it were any other
> way.

Wouldn't you if it were your company and Keith was the other CEO?

Thanks for posting. I like The Who and admire Townsends songwriting and musicianship, but I'll never buy his excuses over his child porn "research"

Many thanks Stargroves.

Great interview.

whether you're a band playing pubs or stadiums. there's always ONE member of every band that has to be involved in everything. the mother if you will

and that's Mick

he might moan, but i bet he wouldn't have it any other way

Yeah, I wouldn't feel too sorry for Mick on that score. He fought, sometimes ruthlessly to be in that position of control. He could easily delegate a lot of the non-music side if he wanted but he loves or needs the control. There's probably a part of him that kicks against this too but I think the control freak is dominant.

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for posting. I like The Who and admire
> Townsends songwriting and musicianship, but I'll
> never buy his excuses over his child porn
> "research"


Why not?

yep...i agree...Mick would not want it any other way.

But how do you feel about Townsend blurting this out in the media?
Hell..Mick was probably just blowing off some steam to a friend...and all
of a sudden it's in print and Keith & Ronnie hear about it. Why would
Pete put Mick in that predicament. This is the kinda stuff that can do damage
to a relationship..whether it's a R&R band or your family.

What if Mick started shooting his mouth off about things Pete told him about
his child porn bust? I don't think Pete was being a good friend..but I did like
his contribution to Mick's solo..GUN.

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yep...i agree...Mick would not want it any other
> way.
>
> But how do you feel about Townsend blurting this
> out in the media?
> Hell..Mick was probably just blowing off some
> steam to a friend...and all
> of a sudden it's in print and Keith & Ronnie hear
> about it. Why would
> Pete put Mick in that predicament. This is the
> kinda stuff that can do damage
> to a relationship..whether it's a R&R band or your
> family.

its hardly the first time Pete (or other people) have provided personal anecdotes about Mick, to be fair. He's well used to it by now and I doubt he's remotely bothered about it. Besides, Mick's quote is pretty much how most people would see it.

>
> What if Mick started shooting his mouth off about
> things Pete told him about
> his child porn bust?

I doubt he'd be revealing anything that Pete hasnt already told about a hundred interviewers already. He's been more than candid about it. When it comes to rock stars, there are few as open about themselves in interviews as Townshend is.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sweet neo con Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yep...i agree...Mick would not want it any
> other
> > way.
> >
> > But how do you feel about Townsend blurting
> this
> > out in the media?
> > Hell..Mick was probably just blowing off some
> > steam to a friend...and all
> > of a sudden it's in print and Keith & Ronnie
> hear
> > about it. Why would
> > Pete put Mick in that predicament. This is the
> > kinda stuff that can do damage
> > to a relationship..whether it's a R&R band or
> your
> > family.
>
> its hardly the first time Pete (or other people)
> have provided personal anecdotes about Mick, to be
> fair. He's well used to it by now and I doubt he's
> remotely bothered about it. Besides, Mick's quote
> is pretty much how most people would see it.
>
> >
> > What if Mick started shooting his mouth off
> about
> > things Pete told him about
> > his child porn bust?
>
> I doubt he'd be revealing anything that Pete hasnt
> already told about a hundred interviewers already.
> He's been more than candid about it. When it comes
> to rock stars, there are few as open about
> themselves in interviews as Townshend is.


Very good point. Which is why it pisses me off when you get people who still say that they think he's guilty. I understand that child abuse of any kind is a highly emotive issue, but Pete was genuinely innocent.

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Big Al Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks for posting. I like The Who and admire
> > Townsends songwriting and musicianship, but
> I'll
> > never buy his excuses over his child porn
> > "research"
>
>
> Why not?

Because he accessed child porn sites. What kind of research other than that of a paedophile would involve looking at disgusting and inhuman images of innocent children? Surely there were other ways he could of researched things. Maybe talking to victims, etc?

It’s just my opinion. I don't dislike they guy and I like The Who quite a bit. I just this thing a little hard to get my head round.

In regard to the "I'm doing all the work" comment by MJ...

it sounds like a wife talking



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-20 05:57 by chelskeith.

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Big Al Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thanks for posting. I like The Who and admire
> > > Townsends songwriting and musicianship, but
> > I'll
> > > never buy his excuses over his child porn
> > > "research"
> >
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because he accessed child porn sites. What kind of
> research other than that of a paedophile would
> involve looking at disgusting and inhuman images
> of innocent children? Surely there were other ways
> he could of researched things. Maybe talking to
> victims, etc?

>
> It’s just my opinion. I don't dislike they guy and
> I like The Who quite a bit. I just this thing a
> little hard to get my head round.

You'd have every reason to hate Pete if he was actually guilty, like Gary Glitter was and is. Paedophiles are beyond redemption and treatment. They're the lowest denominator of scum. Had I believed Pete to be guilty, I would have thrown all my Who albums away.

But he wasn't guilty at all. The media got hold of what was a sensational story (remember the Bill Wyman-Mandy Smith scandal?), twisted the facts and made a naive - yes - but ultimately innocent man look like a monster.

Anyway, if you can find it, I wrote a far longer and more detailed post on here about what the actual facts were behind the arrest. The upshot of it was that Pete had notified both Scotland Yard and the Internet Watch Foundsation via email both PRIOR to using accessing the site and immediately afterwards. Scotland Yard lost both emails, but the Internet Watch Foundation not only found them, but published them and issued a statement saying that they believed in Pete's innocence.

chelskeith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In regard to the "I'm doing all the work" comment
> by MJ...
>
> it sounds like my wife.
>
> To me, one of the reasons for the success of this
> band is the make up of its individuals. Obviously,
> there is talent, but many bands have talent. What
> the Stones have is two incredible people who are
> as good as any in their profession.
>
> Mick is able to wear two hats, one is that of a
> performer and the other as a businessman. He has
> the type of personality where he feeds off being
> busy, and micro-managing every detail of his
> business, as many entrepreneurs do. He wants to
> control the destiny of the Stones, and so far,
> he's done an amazing job. Whats incredible is he
> is equally as talented as a performer, where few
> compare to his talent in terms of songwriting and
> performing, and in designing and managing huge
> rock tours and the business affairs of a major
> rock band.
>
> Keith, on the other hand, is a true artist. He's
> all about the music, and while he has opinions
> about the business affairs of the band, he is not
> interested in managing the day to day business of
> the Stones. In this regard, he's fortunate to have
> Mick as a partner. With that said, Mick is equally
> fortunate to have Keith as a partner as without
> the musical and spiritual soul, the rough side,
> and the talent Keith brings to the relationship,
> Mick wouldnt have the empire to manage. We've seen
> Micks solo music and his performances, and while
> its pretty good, Keith is missing. From a musical
> standpoint, Keith is equally responsible for the
> success of the Stones. He's Mick's writing
> partner, and he is a force in the studio, at
> rehearsals, and in concert. Mick is in charge of
> being in front, keeping the audience happy. Keith
> is in charge of the band, and when it works, we
> know what happens.
>
> Like many true artists, Keith is someone who
> experiments with his mind, and his music. Mick is
> more conservative, This is another example of how
> they compliment each other. The other strength of
> their relationship is how they both have equal
> billing within their organization. Not many
> business partnerships have survived as long as
> theirs, and only half of the marriages, at least
> in the US, survive.
>
> So when Mick complains to Pete, in my opinion, it
> sounds like my wife bitching that she is doing
> everything, when in reality, she doesnt really see
> the big picture.
>
> John


Yo John...I suggest couples therapy........really.

chelskeith, a great analysis of the mutual depandence of Mick and Keith!

I don't know about you guys, but I find Pete's description funny, especially Keith/Ron part - to decide to get drunk or not. Great British dry humour, and Pete is always good with words. I am sure all the guys mentioned would laugh to it.

- Doxa

And anyway, we all know how these interviews are done: you sit down, have a cup of tea or a pint of beer and the other guy takes notes. He may or may not have an idea what he wants you to say or what he wants to know and talented journalists have their ways to make you utter headline material. It must be really easy to get someone like Pete Townsed to say something about the Stones and here we are, the Stones fans, reading the interview with no more than four lines about the Stones.

What happened to the Keith Richards of '78-'80? The one who had furious rows with Mick over the music all the time and fought to keep Mick from having complete control over the band?

>Pete is always good with words.

? He shoots his mouth off with disregard then later issues statements to the press apologizing when he feels like it. He's a loudmouthed twat.

it's_all_wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What happened to the Keith Richards of '78-'80?
> The one who had furious rows with Mick over the
> music all the time and fought to keep Mick from
> having complete control over the band?


I think that was the result of the "World War 3". I suppose Jagger offered strict conditions for Richards if the Stones is going to exist any longer. It's going to be totally professional and Mick will take care of anything. If Keith or Ronnie decide to get drunk, no harm is done; there are people like Chuck Leavell to take care of musical directing, backed up with army of side musicians. Keith and Ronnie are just trying to live up and mime according to their image, and enjoy the cash. It looks like Keith's free ride has effected to his muse finally (or the lack of it) in recent years. Mick's opposite.

- Doxa