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

Re: When Does a Band Stop Being a Band? aka Why is a carrot more orange than an orange?

> gonna have to go to a *Who* concert.  Personally, I
> think it's sad that a hang-up on what they're
calling themselves
> could prevent you
> from seeing two of your favorite rock performers.


Well, I think it's sad that they consider selling out
an unparalled legacy for the sake of some bucks. And,
damn you for making me say it, even Led Zeppelin had
the delicacy not to call it Led Zeppelin anymore. The
Grateful Dead became The Dead. The Who, by not
acknowledging that more than 2/3 of their unique sound
is gone, have become what I call "Pete Townshend and
the original Who." If you get my meaning. It's
crossing a line.
As for the performance, I like my Rock non-diluted.
I'd rather have the memory of the incredible 2000 show
than a watered-down Who cover band performance. Think
about it: if this is "OK" then why not a cover band
that sounds more like the original band than our boys
can now? And call it The Who? What's wrong with that?

But that's just me. I'm only stating how I feel about
it, not judging anyone else. This is a list for
opinions, is it not?

> Besides, how does the name of the band affect Pete's
> guitar playing or Roger's singing?

Then how does a name affect Ringo and Paul's playing?
I mean, really...why can't those two go out as The
Beatles? Because, as we both know, without Harrison

> istically conservative on this issue, ML.

It's appropriate. For this issue. And it's not
uncharacteristic; I feel this way about a lot of
things. Don't mess with the legends...you can only
make less of them!

> The argument over is it the Who or not may not be
> about the name as many
> have said it is.


For me, it's what the name symbolizes. Clearly a word
is a word, none better or worse than another. But what
the word MEANS might be better or worse. And to me,
and most of the people in the Rock world, The Who
means the band who made LAL. For them to go out as
half the band and pretend to be the entire band is
bound to cause snickers.

> Personally, "The Who" died when John did,

That's EXACTLY how I see it.

> Pete play.  My opinion
> may change if the set lists stay the same.;-)

Really. I'm with you here, too. I'm less interested if
it's going to be the 2000 tour third time around. If
they started doing Pictures Of Lily and Love Ain't For
Keeping and The Good's Gone and stuff like that, I'd
be there in a heartbeat. If I never hear
Baba/Pinball/BBE live again, that would be fine with

> But, I can tell you this, not having John there
> absolutely does impact Pete's playing and Roger's

Yes! I am not alone!

> a show with 2/3 of the seats empty. Most of the
> ticket buyers want to see a 
> band named The Who.


Only to be disappointed when it's not the band they
thought it was. Because they don't know who the Hell
Entwistle and Moon were, but they can hear that
they're not there!

> If the RAH show really is an accoustic Tommy, then
> I'll definitely buy that.


Me too. Now if they went out as R&P without ANY backup
members...that I'd attend! Shades of White Stripes!

> Anyway...to me, and I'll admit I'm a harsh critic,
> these songs sound like album filler, like A Man Is A
> Man or Why Did I Fall For That.

A few more listens have made me realize why. It's the
drumming. Zak sounds less like Moon and more like
Jones. Also I find RGLB the catchier of the two songs.
But I'm really not impressed by the bass in either...I
couldn't tell which had Lake and neither come close to

> So you agree that we need an anthem somewhere on the
> new album, right?  :)


We need a kick ass short powerful Punkish Rock song
(or ten, if it was up to me), along the ICE lines. We
need an anthem. And a lot of great tunes that have a
lot of meaningful lyrics. 
IOW, we need these two songs to turn out to be the
least of the album. That would be excellent marketing,
but as Kevin pointed out to me: The Who with a
marketing strategy???? HA HA HA!

> I received the following CD release notification
> from Amazon this morning.
> Did I miss this on the list?


I heard of this one but quickly realized it's nothing
worth bothering with.

> Thanks for the review.


My pleasure!

> I have not heard the songs
> yet, but I'm
> trying to keep expectations in check.

Always a good idea. If it turns out better than you
expected, who loses?

> What does
> annoy me a bit, is the setlist for the first two
> shows. Is Rog/Pete trying to market to a new group
> of fans? Not the die hards.

You're right...and it's not a realistic expectation, I
think. Most young people I know of think The Who are
"mellow Rock."

"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to
allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that
     George "a child left behind" Bush

Cheers         ML

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.