San Francisco Chronicle; Pete solo

Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at
Tue Aug 10 08:24:30 CDT 2004

> This view may not be popular, but The Who have
> become a lounge act.


The truth is rarely popular (no one knows that better
than I). But yeah, you and the author are right.
That's what I mean when I call them "The Who Oldies

> little chatter about these 2004 shows.  Remember how
> dynamic this list was back in 2000?

Yep. That's the danger when you dilute the band.

> Now serious, despite believing Mark is being too
much pure and high-pitched 
in his tentative to preserve all the glorious of a


Myth? Myth, you say? Nay verily, my friend, the
greatness of The Who is no myth. I witnessed it, as
have others here. You know the difference between
seeing a video of The Who live from the current time
and seeing them live. There is a gap. Well, watch IOW
and consider that same gap exists.
I can tell you this much: at the first Who show I saw
(1975), I shouted until my voice was gone. Literally
gone. They weren't like a band, they were some organic
hurricane on the stage. They weren't exciting, they
took you completely out of yourself and into the
music. The music drove through your body and mind like
a freight train. You couldn't ignore it.

OK, this just occured to me. During the Who shows I've
attended since 1989, there is always some chatter
going on around me. People talking to each other. Not
so in 1975! Fans were mesmerized by just the sight. We
were all focused completely on the stage. And no, it
wasn't about the volume of the music. You just
couldn't turn away.

> I somehow agree 
with him that it would be the case of Pete has
remained solo. 

IMHO White City and Psychoderelict are a lot better
than any Who album after Quad.

Q: "Do you think Senator Kerry is qualified to be
commander in chief?" 

Ret. General Tommy Franks: "Absolutely!"

Cheers         ML

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the TheWho mailing list