[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re-united Who



>From: Jacksonjim@aol.com
>Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 09:06:16 -0400
>Subject: It's the Year 2000--Come See The Who!

>Jon, re:
>>It wouldn't surprise me if, several years down the road, Pete comes to
>>terms with The Who and tours and records with it again.  It has happened
>>so
>>often lately with groups that seemingly would never get back together
>>that it
>>could
>>happen with the Who.<<

>You're saying Pete may soften and tour with the Who again.  Do you really
want to see a mid-50s Who slinging their bodies over the stages of America?
 >Yes, many people in their 50s lead active lives, but...Their hearing will
be
>worse, not better, and they will have slowed noticeably.  Y'know, guys, "all
>good things must come to an end" (and I can get some Trek content in as
well).  Pining for the Who will never get you what they had or >were able to
put across in their prime.  The Who I saw in 82 and the quasi-Who I saw in 89
did not equal what they had done in 70-73, and I can say that without having
seen them then!

>I don't want to hear them do another FACE DANCES or IT'S HARD (the latter
>contains some decent Who songs but is still noticeably flawed compared to
>their great body of work).  And I see no evidence that another Who album
>would be much different from those last two that we already have.

>-Jim

>PS. It would be interesting to see how this breaks out:  are those who pine
for another Who tour mostly those who have never the Who at all?  Do those of
>us who've seen them at least once accept that the Who really don't need to
tour anymore?>>

Jim, re your comment.  I guess you could say that I don't "pine away" for the
Who to get back together again.  It is a subject that I feel very very mixed
emotions about.

Intellectually, I feel that it probably would not be a good idea.  The reason
for this is not because I don't think that Pete, Roger, and John are up to
it.  Witness Pete's phenomenal performance on his 1993 tour, which shows he
still had it.  JAE just was incredible when I saw him a couple of months
ago--one of the best concerts I have ever seen and I have seen well over a
hundred concerts easily.  I didn't see Roger on his 1994 tour, but I heard at
times that he was excellent as well.

The main reason, intellectually at least, why it is probably not a good idea
for the group to get back together is the absence of Keith.  I think that his
drumming (and presence) were so much a part of the Who that without him, it
is almost an exercise in futility.

On the other hand, when I see  such groups as the Rolling Stones (and, ugh,
the Eagles) out on the road, getting  great reviews of their concerts (which
they did, at least in the S.F. Bay Area), it makes we want the Who to get out
there and kick some a**.  Even without Keith, part of me thinks they could
really do it. Of course I don't want to see the Las Vegas Who of 1989, but
maybe a version of the 1979 Who with a Rabbit-like person on Keyboards and a
drummer better than Kenney Jones.

So as for me, it is something I go back and forth about quite often.

I don't know if it has ever been done, but I would be curious how many people
on this Digest want the group to re-form (and if so, in what form), and how
many of you think that well enough should be left alone.  It is not an easy
answer.

Jon Karesh