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

Re: Pino on Bass

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:54:27 -0500
From: "Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>

I won't say my first show without John was unbearable, but it was a huge
bummer, for lack of a better word.

What???
What the hell??
Why didn't you say anything??
Scott, Stu and I all felt like outcasts for even *suggesting* the Boston 1.
show was a disappointment, and there you were hiding your feelings?
Sheeesh.

Probably because that was the first show of a stretch in which I saw 8 shows (7 of them Who) in 9 days and had very little ability to get near a computer even if I'd wanted to.

Boston I, *was* your first non-John show, right?

Right.

At this point, with the choice of Pino for the upcoming show, the show is 
The Pete Show. It's Pete with sidemen.
<snip>
Pete has wanted control of The Who since its inception and now he's got
another huge chunk of it, and the choice of Pino shows he's not about to
give any of it >up.

If you're talking about *musical* control, like making the band perform in a
very polished, almost pre-packaged way, than I can see some of that. But,
I'm not as cynical about this as what the above sounds. I don't buy that
Pete is making selfish decisions, to support his own career, and individual
stardom.

I don't think it's a calculated move to preserve his career. I just think it's the way he operates. He's been that way all his life. He runs things and will damage himself, if necessary, literally or figuratively, to maintain and exercise that control.

I also think that if Pete really wanted to do that, he's smart
enough to know that to achieve the greatest degree of success will be
directly dependant on achieving the greatest amount of success for The Who
in general.

That just fits in. "The Who" is a brand name with proven (or at least, known) box-office draw. Monkeying with the formula at this point is monkeying with a great deal of money. Hence, NOT monkeying with it -- not adding the unknown and risky element of a name and talent on a par with Pete -- is all the more tempting.

Hell, his solo career is proof. Plus, how does one explain
Zak? Zak clearly can take much attention away from Pete, and also
challenges Pete (when Pete lets him). I wish Pete would allow those
challenging moments, those moments of communication between Zak and himself
grow more, allow to explore.

I appreciate Zak and what he does, but I look at him about 2.5% as much as I look at Pete. I don't think he takes away all that much attention.

I've noticed in some fans, particularly strong John fans, that there's a lot
of resentment against Pete. For perceived slights at John, perhaps?? I'd
love to see one of you expound a bit on what it is that is generating this.
I know it's there. I've seen it and heard it. And, I know there's probably
the thinking 'I don't want to go diving into it on a list, and be seen as a
Pete hater', but....
It's much deeper than just Pino.

John and Pete still had their tensions, even into 2001. It probably is deeper than whoever-fills-in-stage-right, but that's one place it's expressed.

Playing it safe may not be the entire explanation. I see it as a lack of
interest. Like "who gives a shit, I've promised Roger to do this album and
tour, and I just want to get on with it, get it done, and get the fuck out".
It's the 'get the fuck out' that's kind of disappointing. The end. The
last year.

Could well be. A different but still sobering reason the life that should be in the tour may not be.

Cheers,
Alan
"the average Texan...carries not just a gun but a SHOTGUN." --Pete Townshend, 1967