Who IS The Who

[AThosWhite@aol.com]

I fully expect to be torn to ribbons for the following post, but it needs to
be said.

The Kinks without Pete Quaife and Mick Avory are still the Kinks.
The Rolling Stones without Brian Jones and Bill Wyman are still the Rolling
Stones.
The Who without Keith Moon are still The Who.
BUT. . .
The Kinks without Ray Davies would not be the Kinks.
The Rolling Stones without Mick or Keith would not be the Rolling Stones.
The Who without Pete Townshend would not be The Who.

All this crap about a band's lineup having to be the same from the first gig
to the last is precisely that. . .crap.  Musicians can and do come and go.
 As much as I loved and respected Moonie he was ALWAYS replaceable.  It
wouldn't have been the same--certainly.  It wouldn't have been as
good--probably.  But it still would have been The Who.  Ditto for Roger and
John.  Don't get me wrong--what happened when The Who hit the stage or studio
was absolute magic, and it wouldn't have been the same without ANY one of
them.  But NONE of it could have happened if Pete hadn't brought them the
songs (But if you insist on a "primacy of lineup" logic then I guess it
wasn't REALLY The Beatles without Pete Best.  Silly me for thinking
otherwise.).

The VOICE of a band can change.  The RHYTHM SECTION of a band can change.
 The LEAD GUITARIST of a band can change.  It's still the same band.  What
absolutely, under no circumstances, can change is the CREATIVE VISION of the
band:  who writes the songs can not change.  That person (or persons) IS the
band.  That person/s owns the name.  Period.

But what about the Beach Boys, you ask?  Are they REALLY the Beach Boys
without Brian Wilson?  No, of course not.  But Brian gave them the OK to use
the name, so I don't mind going to see (not that I ever have, mind you) a
Brian Wilson-less Beach Boys.  But I ain't about to compare "Kokomo" to "Pet
Sounds."  Uh-huh.

But what about Pink Floyd, you ask?  Are they REALLY Pink Floyd without Roger
Waters?  No, of course not.  And Roger Waters is still bitching about it.  As
much as I respect David Gilmour as a musician (has he EVER played a note out
of place?) the way he's put together this amazingly lifelike Pink Floyd
simulation is just plain sleazy--read any interview with Roger Waters about
it and you'll be amazed and disgusted at the hoops Dave has jumped through to
make this band look and sound like "Pink Floyd."  Would I go see them?  NO.
 Do the "real" Pink Floyd fans rate records like "A Momentary Lapse of
Reason" on a par with "Dark Side of the Moon?"  I think not.

But what about Lynrd Skyrnd, you ask?  Are they REALLY Lynrd Skynrd without
whoever it was that died (I'll admit proudly to ignorance concerning the
lineups of hell-raising whiskey-drinking sister-f%&king Southern Rock bands)?
 This one is problematic.  The creative vision is dead. . .hmmmm. . .I GUESS
it's OK for the other guys to go ahead using the name.  A trifle dishonest
perhaps, but OK.  If I were of the hell-raising whiskey-drinking
sister-f%&king persuasion I guess I'd go see them--it's as close as I could
possibly get to the real thing.  With Pink Floyd I COULD get closer, if Roger
and Dave suddenly kissed and made up, but until that happens I'm not gonna
support Dave's piracy.

To those who will argue that Roger owns the name THE WHO, and some will argue
fairly convincingly that he does, answer me this:  why isn't he using it?
 When The Who last hit my neck of the woods they sold out a 50,000+ seat
football stadium.  Roger came through on his DST tour and played a >15,000
seat gym and didn't sell it out.  Why didn't he call himself The Who?  He
could have drawn better.  Or why didn't he call it the "Roger Daltrey Salutes
the Songs of The Who Tour?"  Because they're Pete's songs and he knows it.
 (Compare Pete's YBYB demo "I still WRITE a razor line" to The Who's
version--"I still SING a razor line."  Roger knows his place.  He doesn't
LIKE it--and who can blame him--but he knows it)

Then some people will say, OK smart guy, if Pete owns the name why isn't HE
using it, HUH?  That's a stupid question, and shame on you for thinking it.
 Pete has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't LIKE being The Who.

In conclusion:  Pete wrote the songs.  Pete wrote the songs.  Pete wrote the
songs.  Therefore--Pete IS The Who.  I expect the criticism to start flying
now, but do me a favor:  be creative, huh?  

H&K
AThos White