agree and disagree

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

> Arguably, IMO, they are what give the band it's "Who"ness. At any time in > history, without either of these two, the band would have been dead.  John was > magnificent and surely filled up the sound and Keith was a big block motor back > there but these two are the intangible dynamic that drives > this band.
I agree that the band can remain the Who as long as Pete and Roger still want to play, but the Who-ness of the songs is as much John and Keith as Roger and Pete.  Just listen to the post-Keith offerings on Face Dances and It's Hard.  A huge part of the Who-ness of the music clearly isn't there.  Some great songs still came from those albums, but there was clearly an enormous void.  The evidence is when these songs are played live.  While very entertaining, the unpredictability and improvisational nature of pre-1980s Who songs when taken from record to stage doesn't seem to be there.  YBYB and ATD and EF, for example, stay very close to the studio version with only a few minor variations.  These variations usually come in some minor vocal changes by Roger and Pete, and the invariable PT guitar wizardry.  Changes are far more subtle, however.  When The Who post y2k play MG, MB, TKAA, Tommy selections, etc, Keith's legacy is alive and well.  John's void was VERY evident in the 2k2 tour, but his bass work is so insanely unparalleled in rock and roll, his contribution to Who-ness is equivalent to the other 3.
Mc