WOW!! Who w/o pete?

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 06/09/2002 7:21:16 PM Central Daylight Time, 
TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:


> "That's one thing that rarely gets discussed (perhaps for a good
> reason):  *What if* Roger, John, & Kenny (& Rabbit, too, I
> suppose) decided to stay together as a band after Pete quit?
> Any guesses on how long a venture like that would've lasted?
> Or is the whole idea too awkward to even consider?"
> 
> 

Hmmmm.  You're right.  It seems too weird to think about, but here goes.  
They would release one album, featuring maybe a decent entwistle song or two, 
a bunch of bad daltrey tunes, and the album might have even sold reasonably 
well due to curiosity, but critics would rip it and radio play would wane in 
a hurry and all would go their separate ways and we'd have no Who today.  
Pete's solo projects might have sold better, as well, with the good publicity 
he'd get with the Pete-less Who's big flop.  Let's be honest, there are 2 who 
members who are entirely irreplaceable: Pete and Roger.  John is 
unbelieveable, and the Who would not have been the music force they have been 
without him, but the Who could have continued, albeit not nearly as good, 
without him, as they have done w/o keith.  It's pete's words and music that 
made the Who great, and Roger's voice is very distinct and is the voice of 
the Who.  It would be like zeppelin w/o plant.  Just doesn't work.

kevin Mc

"Just fucking listen and shut up!"- Pete Townshend live in Long Beach 1971