Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at
Sat Aug 14 16:08:07 CDT 2004

> that is not okay.  Roger and Pete, if
there were no Pete or 
Roger and it was say..John and Roger left, then I
would agree they 
should not be called The Who.


See, that's not fair. Entwistle was the most unique
bass player in the world. Surely you're not going to
deny that. He gave The Who a sound no one else COULD
have, because of this uniqueness.
I've thought long and hard about this, and if ever
there was a band which needed ALL of its original
members, it is The Who. And of the four, if ONE was
the most replacable, it would be the non-musician
(apparently the band felt this way too, in 1965).
As a stubborn Who fan, unwilling to let go, I was
willing to accept The Who w/o Moon because Zak does
capture the spirit of Moon, and at the same time Pete
and John worked harder and took up the slack. Having
seen it in action, in person, three times...I feel

Pino isn't doing that. He's not even up to John's old
standard. Pete's better than ever, but he's not enough
by himself.

> Just as there could be no Beatles 
without John Lennon.  Just my opinion, of course.

And in mine John Entwistle is easily as important to
The Who as Lennon was to The Beatles. Possibly more
important, since in the last years of The Beatles
(after Sgt. Pepper's) Lennon's participation was less
and less. Whereas in his last few years with The Who,
Entwistle was a JAE-on-steroids. An Entwistlezenegger.
Again, Pino is like Kenney Jones...very good in most
bands, not nearly good enough for The Who.
If you make a cake, substitute salt for sugar, who's
going to eat it? If you build a house, but use a
cardboard foundation, will it stand? Etc.

"I knew it might put him in an awkward position that
we had a discussion before finality has finally
happened in this presidential race."
  George "but it suited him just final" Bush

Cheers         ML

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! 

More information about the TheWho mailing list