Re: Is you is or is you ain't a Who fan

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Well, certainly when one creates such a thing is it not integrity to 
> leave that perfect thing alone, and not use it to cash in? 

So, technically they should've stopped before they created their first
album then!  They had the perfect chemistry.  Why "cash in" by making 
an album?  See how silly that sounds?

But I know you'll say they were only "cashing in" after Moon had died.
Forget the fact that Moon's death didn't stop them from being musicians.
Musicians who still had every right to continue playing, to continue
creating.

For some reason, you see it only as "cashing in" & not what it really
is: making music.  Besides, it's still *their* band.  They are the surviv-
ing members.  Their decision is final.  

> Does it not demean that perfect thing when you use it for a lesser 
> purpose?

A lesser purpose to you maybe but perhaps not to Pete & Rog.  It's still
their livelihood.  Their art.  Their band.

> Townshend has been extremely vocal about Art and high standards. Now...
> was it all just posturing?

Townshend has said a lot things, so what?  He's also said (more recently)
that he no longer cares what people think about his actions.  He embraces
recklessness.  And isn't that how magic Who projects began in the first
place?  Now, all of a sudden, Townshend is supposed to be some disciplined,
high-standard-abiding artist?  C'mon....  

> Why are YOU confused?

Because you seem to hate the music, the sound, of the fragmented Who &
yet all it will take to get you to see a show is a name change!  Either
you're interested in seeing them, or you're not.  And if you *are* inter-
ested in seeing them, but refuse because they still call themselves The
Who, then I think it's *your* integrity you're worried about, not The
Who's.  

Would you not be able to live with yourself?  Would you have sold out on 
some kind of personal level?  Sounds like you're busting your own balls,
man!  

> It means they're not pretending to be something they're not. 

Oh come on.  Who's pretending? (A ha!  There's an album title!)  They're
two surviving members of a great rock & roll band who still have the de-
sire to play the odd gig & possibly record a record.  They're not trying
to *fool* anybody!  It's not deceitful!

> You wouldn't expect The Who if they call themselves the DTs or something.

Yeah, like everyone going to Who shows now thinks Moon & Entwistle might
be there!  No one expects The Who in 2003 or 2004 to be the Who of old!
We know what we're getting!  The Who of 2003 & 2004 consists of just Rog
& Pete, that's all.  There's no illicit illusion being perpetrated on any-
one!

> If Ringo and Paul went out as The Beatles, would you feel comfortable 
> with that? 

Bad analogy because the Beatles never did subsequent tours with a dimin-
ished original line-up.  If they had, then Ringo & Paul touring as the
Beatles *wouldn't* be that shocking. 

> Most people I asked said those two alone were NOT The Beatles. Well, 
> there you are. That's exactly how I feel about The Who.

I understand, but don't you see that you're projecting some sort of *per-
sonal* ideology onto the band?  "That's not *my* Who!  I saw The Who!
Back in '75!  Now, *that* was The Who!"

What about Simon Malia's brilliant post about the mod chick who disregard-
ed any Who beyond 1967?!  According to her, you, Mark, never saw the real
Who, either.  You sold out by seeing the lame '75 Who!  If you had it to
do all over again, knowing that lady's opinion, would you have skipped
that '75 show?  Of course not!  Why?  Because you take what you can get,
that's why.

You're denying yourself of seeing one of your favorite guitarists, Pete
Townshend, play live.  Just how is that a good & beneficial decision?

> Nah. It's not The Who.

It hasn't been the goddamned Who since '78!!!!!  Who fucking cares!!!!!


- SCHRADE in Akron

Nature does not deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
	- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762)