> 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