Re: When Does a Band Stop Being a Band?

["Neil E. Weissman" <neilweissman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I do not want to get into semantics here regarding a name as that is not
really the issue, or is it?  But, how they as performers view themselves is
important, to them I am sure.  When they toured the first part of the Quad
1996 tour, it was Pete Townshend, Roger Daltrey, and John Entwistle present
(or something like that) Quadrophenia and it sounded like a high-priced
cover band.  Later, they billed it as The Who (to sell tickets too) and
presented a more lively and energetic show.

The argument over is it the Who or not may not be about the name as many
have said it is.  It is probably about the presentation.  Yes, it is "The
Who" sound and will always be just that.  Who2 is a crafty, tongue in cheek
way of addressing this.  Let me just say, the name is not that important as
they and everyone can call it what they want.  Personally, "The Who" died
when John did, now they are just presenting the music their way with this
band.  I am just glad we get to here Roger sing and Pete play.  My opinion
may change if the set lists stay the same.;-)

But, I can tell you this, not having John there absolutely does impact
Pete's playing and Roger's singing.  Just listen to the 2000 tour compared
to 2002.  They cannot jam because Pino cannot follow/lead like John did (no
criticism, just fact).  They relied on John's playing more than any of us
could know.  Listen to the two new songs.  Where is the bass influence on
these that is on nearly every Who song?  Where is the mixing and arranging
that he added to songs?

> Besides, how does the name of the band affect Pete's guitar playing
> or Roger's singing?  I'm all for having principles but sometimes they
> need to be put into context & reevaluated.  You're being uncharacter-
> istically conservative on this issue, ML.