Long Live The (real) Who
bushchoked at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 9 12:59:44 CDT 2004
> Less than what is the question that I haven't seen
> you answer yet.
In my reply to Scott, I said the band "soared among
the eagles" in 2000. "What" was defined by The Who
long ago. Don't know if I can put it into words, but I
can definitely hear it when it's there. Don't you know
what I mean?
I will repeat what I've said in the past: when I saw
them in 1975, it was the best Rock concert I've
seen...to that point and since, and I've seen most of
the "majors" over the years. The second best Who show
was Atlanta 2000, which shows they "had it" then. The
next would be Raleigh 1997, then MSG 1996, last
So it's not a matter of "time." They had it every time
I saw them except 1989, and that's because it was just
As you know, I planned to go to 2002. But when John
killed himself, I lost the heart and financial
circumstances made it clear I shouldn't go. Hearing
the shows I've gotten from that tour made me glad I
didn't, because "it" wasn't there. The passion, the
magic. Too many non-Who people involved in the music,
just like in 1989. Pete alone with a lessened Rog and
an uninspired (or inspiring) bass player. And I don't
care if he's loud or unheard, he's no John Entwistle.
> By your account, they should have packed it in back
> in '72.
More like 2002. When what was holding them together
went away. And I mean: to pull off the non-Keith Who
they needed both Pete and John working overtime. No
John, no Who.
Thinking about it, I don't think it could have been
"The Who" if John had died instead of Keith in 1978.
"There's no question that the minute I got elected,
the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly
George "so it's Clinton's fault" Bush
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
More information about the TheWho