Who is the Who?

I would imagine, at least in the States, that if Roger and John opted to hit
the road without Pete, they would have to obtain his legal permission to call
themselves the Who.  One would think that Pete could do more than just bitch
about it.

Someone on this list would actually travel 200 miles to see Kenney Jones and
some cronies calling themselves 'the Who'? Why? I mean, Jones isn't a bad
guy, but I don't get this.

I look at it like this (not from the more corporate/financial angle that Fang
is taking in terms of what sells tix--he's right, Roger and John touring and
calling themselves the Who will get fannies in the seats (but will a lot of
those fans express derision when they realize there's no Pete? Some
definitely would.).  When I became a Who fan in early 79, Moon was already
gone, so I never was able to get personally attached to that Who because for
me, it wasn't present in the flesh, it wasn't obtainable.  So, I guess that's
why I can see a Moonless incarnation as the Who and not feel that there's
some cosmic imbalance. Now, I couldn't think of the Who without Townshend,
Entwistle, and Daltrey.  Anything less than these 3 is not the Who.  I have a
harder time calling the 89 tour 'the Who' because of the extra percussionist
and the 3 backup vocalists (although I deeply enjoyed the show I saw).  If
Townshend toured with Roger, John, Rabbit, and a drummer (most likely Jones
or Phillips) and they played an "unplugged" style set to accommodate Pete, it
would be the Who to me (akin to the new Who that Pete talked about in 79; an
unplugged Who would be a really interesting event).  I could even handle it
if they brought in an extra guitarist to handle aspects that Townshend
couldn't.  

Is it silly to argue about this? No way, it's what the list is all about. 

- --Jim