Re[2]:

[James L Jackson <jacksonj@battelle.org>]

 >So, had the Who begun touring full-time again (and recall that Keith was 
>trying to kick his alcohol habit at the time of his death), who knows how far 
>back Keith could have gotten?  

Michael, I think the fact that he died is THE INDICATION that he wasn't gonna 
get any better. I will take the 79 Who over anything that might have transpired 
if Keith had lived. If the past is a good indicator of the future, then the dye 
was cast.

   >But the fact is, the members of the Who made a very poor choice to replace
>Keith.  Kenny not only couldn't come up with original stuff as good as Keith'

Well, maybe it would have helped if Pete had written better, more Who-like 
material. Do you think Keith could have saved either FD or IH? I doubt it.

>but he couldn't even replicate Keith's playing on the older material- 

If he had tried, he'd have been crucified by Roger and many fans, including 
you. The man couldn't win for losing.

>the Who just didn't sound like the Who with Kenny.  

I say they were the Who that sounded different. The Who in 1973 didn't sound 
like the Who on LIVE AT LEEDS.  This argument becomes pointless. Their style 
changed, for musical and personal reasons (keith's drug use didn't help him one 
bit).

>Were they still a good band?  Yea, and they were still capable of being 
          >exciting.  
          
          I think at that point in their careers, to be able to be 
          just "exciting" is not so damn bad at all. I don't think 
          they'd have created anything better in terms of new material 
          than what we got anyway. I don't think a Keith Moon type 
          drummer would have saved their 80s records.
          
          --jim