[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mc tired of having opinion on post-John Who misconstrued



John was a really important part of the Who's power - both with hisa (not frequent enough) songs , and with his bass - especially in the last two tours where his intricate bass lines were allowed to flow and blossom.

The who's music is not the same without him - I sadly missed his fingers on the 2002 tour, and the loss of songs that don't work without his magic.

Steve




At 01:17 AM 9/29/03 -0400, you wrote:
> Jump on Mc's anti-John bandwagon all you want.
> I say his stance is due to not seeing him live except for 3 songs and then
> seeing multiple non-John who shows in '02.
> He has no other comparison.
> Of *course* he's going to state that not having John didn't
> have an impact.
> You *really* believe that?
> Do you?

OK, people. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! You find me anything I have written here that disrespects John's talent and contribution to what the Who was (and is, for that matter) and I will shut up forever (I hear Kevin furiously scanning the archives). Let it be stated by me that there would have been no true Who without John Entwistle. He was the greatest and most influential bass player in rock history, and it isn't close. He brought a quality to Who songs which helped bring them to life. Only a bass player of his caliber could do justice to Townshend's music and help transform the songs into ones to which several generations of rock musicians pay homage even today (Vedder, Limp Bizkit, etc). His contribution was in helping to create the music which defined Who songs and in their sound on the live stage.

This having been stated, I stand by my belief that John's absence will not be a significant detriment to ticket sales on an upcoming tour. This is NOT because I lack respect for his abilities, but because of two things:

1. Most rabid Who fans who really knew of John and how HUGE a part of the Who he was, are going to go, anyway. It's Pete and Roger and Zak and Rabbit and Who freaks are gonna go to the shows, especially when the 2002 shows were so good (though obviously would have sounded HUGELY better with world's greatest bassist).

2. Most casual Who fans or general fans of classic rock have either not heard of John Entwistle or know who he was and that he was awesome, but wouldn't be able to distinguish from the Who pre- and post-JAE. They want to see a great show and hear music that they like, and Pete and Roger with the rest (even Pino), can provide that. These people will buy tickets on this criteria, not whether John is there. This is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. Could the Who have a great show w/o Pete, for example? We know the answer.

At all seven 2002 Who concerts, all the people I talked to fit into one of these two categories. There will naturally be people who won't attend because they have seen the Who many times with John, and have decided that they don't want to see a Who that isn't as good. There are also people who saw the Who with Keith who have never been to post-1978 shows for the same reason. These people are a small minority, I believe.

I will concede that if there is no new Who material, another greatest hits tour might lack the success of the last one simply because of repetition. Some may think it's these same old farts after our money again. I, for one, would part with some dough to see them again no matter what, but I make no judgements on those who feel differently.

Finally, I would appreciate it if there were no more posts about Mc "dissing" JAE or being "anti-John." Nothing could be farther from the truth. I understand the impact a great bass player can have, as my band has recently gotten a new bassist who is 300% percent better than our old one, and the difference is like night and day. If you're going to disagree with me, then disagree with something I actually believe and have written.


Mc