Re: Calling it the Who without Pete...

The problem I have with this article is 1) I read it almost 14 years ago, 
2) it 
hurts me to read it and 3) it only adds fuel to the fire to the Who is the 
Who debate.   You really have to be desperate if you want to hear the Who 
in such a form they are so unrecognizable from what they were.

Let's think on a realistic level "for a moment".  Honestly I'm shocked 
that so many list members are so desperate to see a fraud.  I've seen 
plenty of them myself (the Who '89, Moody Blues '91, the list goes on 
depressingly.)  All the Who are now is just a damn name, nothing else.  
When you hear the name currently it's now a tour item, a price object, a 
prize, not a rock band.   AthosWhite's argument is irrelevant because he 
only thinks of rock bands as those who are lead by true leaders.  Anyone 
who listens to the Who will tell you that's where the stereotyping 
begins.  Unlike the beach boys, the beatles, the kinks, the Who were 
built upon strong compliments to PT's music.  Without KM  or JE, the band 
is not the same, or could even rebound to it's original form.  Why do you 
think Zeppelin called it quits after Bonham's death?  They at least KNEW 
that their drummer was essential to their music.  The original members of 
the Who ignored that simple fact.