replacing members corrected

Sroundtable at Sroundtable at
Fri Apr 30 22:48:48 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.  I agree with Mark, though.  ACDC has suffered from its 
inception from a lack of real ideas.  The Who should have given them a few of theirs.

<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.  At concerts, 
musicians and deep fans of the Who would watch John, but not the rabble (who watched 
Pete, Rog, and Keith)- and w/o the rabble, 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.


More information about the TheWho mailing list