Re: Calling it the Who without Pete...

> >I'm speaking of what the Moody Blues became, which I admit to knowing 
> >before I paid my ticket, IE why bother touring?  The same can apply to the 
> >current Pink Floyd.  
> 
> Ian:
> 
> It's the same band and the same songwriters in the Moodies. They made the
> decision to change...and while I like it about as much as you do, I don't
> think it applies to this debate.

Maybe not to you, but the fact that both the Moodies and the Who headed 
in the same depressing direction is still there. 


> 
> >While it may be easier to imitate John Bonham, his sound is hard to 
> >copy.  I contest that Bonham was as best a fit for LZ as Moon for the 
> >Who.  Bonham wasn't just a timekeeper, he was a force by himself.  But 
> >here's what I don't understand, when do you think Plant lost his voice?  
> 
> It must be easy to imitate Bonham; Phil Collins could do it. 

You obviously don't listen very closely to drummers.  Collins never 
produced that trademark thunder Bonham was known for.  In comparison 
Collins is a lighter player.  

> When did Plant lose his voice, you ask? It was obvious on HOUSES, and went
> down from there. He really hit a low point on ITTOD.
> 

I think his voice changed on Houses, he didn't lose it. Plant could 
certainly sing (the only way Plant knows how) on Physical Graffiti.  And 
again on ITTOD you hear Plant's solo album voice taking shape.