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

Pete Slams Roger (is he in the NHL?)



H&K
AThosWhite, re:

>Did anybody other than me feel Pete obliquely slammed Roger >in his
reference to "Roger, like other people who have been >disenfranchised by
their bands breaking up earlier than they >would have liked?"  Struck me as
nasty, anyway.

It may be nasty, but it's very truthful.  I am having more problems with
Roger lately than Pete.  I know that Pete has this love/hate thing with the
Who, but Roger has got the major goo-goo over getting the band back together.
 He admitted the band ended prematurely in 82 (I can see that he relented to
this just to keep Pete away from the temptation of hard drugs), so they did
the 89 thing.  But now, he seems so full of venom or unresolved feelings over
the band's end.  I would say that Roger is disenfranchized--he's had his
outlet taken away and he has no real recourse for getting it back.  But it's
the way things go.  There's no real reason for Pete to sugarcoat this; he
seems readily aware that Roger wants the Who but can't get it.  I don't think
Pete is dangling the Who in front of Roger like the proverbial carrot before
the horse, so Pete's not nasty--he's blunt.  I think Entwistle may have felt
disenfranchized, but at least John is doing a new band and finding another
opportunity for himself.  

I actually think Roger is beginning to embarrass himself with pieces like the
94 GOLDMINE.  It was good to see Roger's perspective on the band, but Roger's
bitterness seems childish.  I understand how major the Who was in his life,
but he had it for a very long time.  He should either move on or find ways to
do the Who that can satisfy him to some extent.

Jim