To Who or not Who2
amck at thenetdr.com
Sat Aug 7 09:45:34 CDT 2004
Jumping into the ongoing conversation:
> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:53:16 -0400
> From: "Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt at gmavt.net>
> Townshend is playing some of the best guitar of his career.
> He's physically and mentally in the best shape of his life.
> It would be stupid to end it now.
I would never say that Pete should stop performing, regardless of
whether the performances are good or not. Currently, by all reports
he's doing excellent performances, as he did in the 2002 and 2004 shows
I saw, but I wouldn't tell him not to perform even when he's lonely,
and broken, and old. If he wants to get out on stage, I want to see
what he wants me to see -- regardless of the physical quality of the
show, as long as the mental aspect is there. However:
> But, he can't get the sort of "play" he can with his mates that make up
> And, Who2 can't get the sort of "play" they can without the use of the
> "The Who."
IMO, it's not The Who any more. By all means, the guys currently
performing as The Who should continue to perform, but not under that
name. If Who2 "can't get the sort of 'play' they can without the use
of the name 'The Who'" -- by which I take it you mean that they won't
get as big an audience -- that's just the way life goes. From the 2004
reviews we've been seeing, "Who2" could/would/has generate(d) thousands
of fans, including plenty of "The Who" fans, who continue to want to
see everyone on stage perform. There is also the chance -- even
likelihood -- that "Who2" would *not* draw as many people. But if
that's the case, at least the name "The Who" isn't being used to imply
something it isn't. Also, the people who do go to see them wouldn't
have to scramble as hard or pay as much for prime tickets, because the
competition wouldn't include people who simply want to say they've seen
"The Who" but don't know (or care) what The Who really was.
"the average Texan...carries not just a gun but a SHOTGUN." --Pete
More information about the TheWho