replacing members



Sroundtable at aol.com Sroundtable at aol.com
Thu Apr 29 12:52:20 CDT 2004


Then there is AC/DC. The new singer is not that great. Yet for that band I 
guess it works.
I disagree about the "new" singer, though he has been with the band now over 
20 years.  True, Bon Scott was the better pure singer and showman.  Bon could 
actually go toe-to-toe with Angus, where Johnson can't.  BUT, Johnson's voice 
is perfect for them and they have made much of their best music with him.  The 
Bon Scott era songs seemed to blend together and get repetitious (How many 
times can one band write the same song?), whereas some of the later stuff 
actually has some uniqueness to it (see Thunderstruck) and Johnson can be given some 
credit for that.  He's a screecher and Scott was a singer, but he's still 
good in my book.


Would you say, Aerosmith be Aerosmith, with out the bass and drummer? Yes I 
think so.
I agree.  If there is Perry and Tyler, I think people would still go to an 
Aerosmith show (but as we saw people wouldn't w/o Perry).  Joey Kramer (drums) I 
believe is more important than the other two, but would be replaceable.  
People go to SEE Joe and Stephen.


I guess my point would be it is all in the music, the sound, yet as all 
bands the sound does change over the the years life of a band. Least I sure 
would hope so.
Again, I am with you.  John's loss was in the sound, while Keith's was in 
sound and show, making Keith's death more difficult to recover from (see 20+ 
years to even begin to get past it).  But as I've said before, John was not 
well-known to the "general" public while Moonie's antics were world famous and his 
wild stories still make the rounds these days.  He gets mentioned even today 
every time that exploding drum story is recounted on VH-1.  Musicians and deep 
fans of the Who would watch John, but not the rabble (who watched Pete, Rog, 
and Keith)- and w/o them, no concert.  Those who listen to Who music at length 
and analyze it's intricacies hears and feels the absence of John at a show or 
in the new songs, but the average fan does not.  This has allowed The Who to 
keep their legitimacy in the eyes of the mass public and still sell tickets and 
(hopefully) CDs.  We saw what happened when Roger and John tried to do "The 
Who" w/o Pete, and I feel safe in saying that a Pete and John w/no Roger would 
have been a disaster, too.  

I understand those fans who have bonded with The Who through concerts with 
John, and don't feel they are really The Who.  For them it's not The Who- the 
spirit that is this band isn't there for them anymore and that's totally legit.  
For others like me, I feel deprived in that I didn't come to love The Who 
until 2000, so the spirit for me remains and I want to experience as much of the 
spirit as Roger and Pete and Who2 have left.

Mc



More information about the TheWho mailing list